Got to be asked....K5 ii or iis...
- Topic Locked - You will not be able to post to this topic. Descending into arguments
Posted 05/03/2014 - 17:13
Link
Glad to have enticed you back When I say equal or equalised I am talking about visible differences to the two images, side by side at high magnification. My testing showed such 'equalisation' at certain stages in the processing chains (as I've detailed a bit above). I also mean that the images achieved such visible equalisation without IQ degradations.
I am not referring to how the images arrived at being 'equal'. In some cases this will be without much active user input depending on your software (eg if comparing embedded camera JPEGs representing the PRIME processor working, or if using later versions of PDCU that read and act on the metadata.) But in any case, for that output stage, they are effectively 'equal'.
I have never said the filter-less system is not 'inherently sharper'. Obviously by design it is, at capture stage. But we do not use images, for viewing or anything, at capture stage .... they are all processed - that is digital capture - either by the camera processor or by us on the computer - they are even processed to be viewed - they are rendered into pixel-based files and each viewer software applies various default parameters for its display. So the extra 'inherent sharpness' of an 's' file can only be of any significance when considered through an output and processing chain, and looking at what happens to it compared to the 'non-s' image.
Regarding the amount of PP, for those who don't want to apply sharpening or don't want to do any sort of controlled detailing of their photos, it may be that the 's' version may offer more - see my conclusions in the report for more detail on that.
But I'd recommend to anyone to think about selective application of sharpening - I mean, why would you want to sharpen skys, or peoples skins for example? If you already take some control over you image sharpening then you may find that the 's' will not offer any particular advantages to you once you get to your final output ... that was my own conclusion for myself.
I am not referring to how the images arrived at being 'equal'. In some cases this will be without much active user input depending on your software (eg if comparing embedded camera JPEGs representing the PRIME processor working, or if using later versions of PDCU that read and act on the metadata.) But in any case, for that output stage, they are effectively 'equal'.
I have never said the filter-less system is not 'inherently sharper'. Obviously by design it is, at capture stage. But we do not use images, for viewing or anything, at capture stage .... they are all processed - that is digital capture - either by the camera processor or by us on the computer - they are even processed to be viewed - they are rendered into pixel-based files and each viewer software applies various default parameters for its display. So the extra 'inherent sharpness' of an 's' file can only be of any significance when considered through an output and processing chain, and looking at what happens to it compared to the 'non-s' image.
Regarding the amount of PP, for those who don't want to apply sharpening or don't want to do any sort of controlled detailing of their photos, it may be that the 's' version may offer more - see my conclusions in the report for more detail on that.
But I'd recommend to anyone to think about selective application of sharpening - I mean, why would you want to sharpen skys, or peoples skins for example? If you already take some control over you image sharpening then you may find that the 's' will not offer any particular advantages to you once you get to your final output ... that was my own conclusion for myself.
My Guides to the Pentax Digital Camera Flash Lighting System : Download here from the PentaxForums Homepage Article .... link
Pentax K7 with BG-4 Grip / Samyang 14mm f2.8 ED AS IF UMC / DA18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL WR / SMC A28mm f2.8 / D FA 28-105mm / SMC F35-70 f3.5-4.5 / SMC A50mm f1.7 / Tamron AF70-300mm f4-5.6 Di LD macro / SMC M75-150mm f4.0 / Tamron Adaptall (CT-135) 135mm f2.8 / Asahi Takumar-A 2X tele-converter / Pentax AF-540FGZ (I & II) Flashes / Cactus RF60/X Flashes & V6/V6II Transceiver
Pentax K7 with BG-4 Grip / Samyang 14mm f2.8 ED AS IF UMC / DA18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL WR / SMC A28mm f2.8 / D FA 28-105mm / SMC F35-70 f3.5-4.5 / SMC A50mm f1.7 / Tamron AF70-300mm f4-5.6 Di LD macro / SMC M75-150mm f4.0 / Tamron Adaptall (CT-135) 135mm f2.8 / Asahi Takumar-A 2X tele-converter / Pentax AF-540FGZ (I & II) Flashes / Cactus RF60/X Flashes & V6/V6II Transceiver
Posted 05/03/2014 - 17:19
Link
Eee wont let it lie DarkMunk Ee'll never let it lie our McNi
Posted 05/03/2014 - 17:19
Link
Gravelrash wrote:
And this, Simon, is why I PM'd you
Haha
Why not say it to us all? The OP asked the question on an open forum - he didn't send PM's out to people asking for their views - well, he didn't send me one anyway If its something about the discussion here on this thread why not contribute to it by sharing? Is it something you shouldn't say in public?
And this, Simon, is why I PM'd you
Haha
My Guides to the Pentax Digital Camera Flash Lighting System : Download here from the PentaxForums Homepage Article .... link
Pentax K7 with BG-4 Grip / Samyang 14mm f2.8 ED AS IF UMC / DA18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL WR / SMC A28mm f2.8 / D FA 28-105mm / SMC F35-70 f3.5-4.5 / SMC A50mm f1.7 / Tamron AF70-300mm f4-5.6 Di LD macro / SMC M75-150mm f4.0 / Tamron Adaptall (CT-135) 135mm f2.8 / Asahi Takumar-A 2X tele-converter / Pentax AF-540FGZ (I & II) Flashes / Cactus RF60/X Flashes & V6/V6II Transceiver
Pentax K7 with BG-4 Grip / Samyang 14mm f2.8 ED AS IF UMC / DA18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL WR / SMC A28mm f2.8 / D FA 28-105mm / SMC F35-70 f3.5-4.5 / SMC A50mm f1.7 / Tamron AF70-300mm f4-5.6 Di LD macro / SMC M75-150mm f4.0 / Tamron Adaptall (CT-135) 135mm f2.8 / Asahi Takumar-A 2X tele-converter / Pentax AF-540FGZ (I & II) Flashes / Cactus RF60/X Flashes & V6/V6II Transceiver
Posted 05/03/2014 - 17:25
Link
DanielH wrote:
Eee wont let it lie DarkMunk Ee'll never let it lie our McNi
But isn't it comforting to know there's always things you can rely upon?
Eee wont let it lie DarkMunk Ee'll never let it lie our McNi
My Guides to the Pentax Digital Camera Flash Lighting System : Download here from the PentaxForums Homepage Article .... link
Pentax K7 with BG-4 Grip / Samyang 14mm f2.8 ED AS IF UMC / DA18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL WR / SMC A28mm f2.8 / D FA 28-105mm / SMC F35-70 f3.5-4.5 / SMC A50mm f1.7 / Tamron AF70-300mm f4-5.6 Di LD macro / SMC M75-150mm f4.0 / Tamron Adaptall (CT-135) 135mm f2.8 / Asahi Takumar-A 2X tele-converter / Pentax AF-540FGZ (I & II) Flashes / Cactus RF60/X Flashes & V6/V6II Transceiver
Pentax K7 with BG-4 Grip / Samyang 14mm f2.8 ED AS IF UMC / DA18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL WR / SMC A28mm f2.8 / D FA 28-105mm / SMC F35-70 f3.5-4.5 / SMC A50mm f1.7 / Tamron AF70-300mm f4-5.6 Di LD macro / SMC M75-150mm f4.0 / Tamron Adaptall (CT-135) 135mm f2.8 / Asahi Takumar-A 2X tele-converter / Pentax AF-540FGZ (I & II) Flashes / Cactus RF60/X Flashes & V6/V6II Transceiver
Posted 05/03/2014 - 17:58
Link
Hello all
Daniel, If he won't mind me saying- simply PM'd me with his opinion. This was not solicited and I have not PM'd unless in response to one!
For the record......here we go..... I have the ii s on order.
My Kr, which produces lovely images is there for when I think moire (moirearty- Holmes' Nemesis) could be a problem.
Phew.
But I must say, the debate has been VERY informative. So thanks to you all.
Regards
Mac
Daniel, If he won't mind me saying- simply PM'd me with his opinion. This was not solicited and I have not PM'd unless in response to one!
For the record......here we go..... I have the ii s on order.
My Kr, which produces lovely images is there for when I think moire (moirearty- Holmes' Nemesis) could be a problem.
Phew.
But I must say, the debate has been VERY informative. So thanks to you all.
Regards
Mac
Posted 05/03/2014 - 18:00
Link
Darkmunk wrote:
It has definitely become silly.
My comment about grease on the lens was definitely silly (hands up, massive exaggeration obviously), I did also say I love both my K5 mark ones. But the iis is demonstrably sharper, which leaves me to concentrate on the rest.
Yet no one has been able to show this in any normal image viewing conditions. the only time it's remotely visible is when enlarging to pixel peeping conditions.It has definitely become silly.
My comment about grease on the lens was definitely silly (hands up, massive exaggeration obviously), I did also say I love both my K5 mark ones. But the iis is demonstrably sharper, which leaves me to concentrate on the rest.
Quote:
Smeggypants, sharpness where the lens has focused is extremely desirable; it doesn't suddenly become sharp everywhere else; in fact the bokeh is better because it hasn't had the noise sharpened later (sometimes unavoidable around the edges).
Using 'pixel peepers' as a derogatory comment is silly and boring. Every single person on this site is concerned with quality, otherwise they would have a point and shoot. How far they go in search of that quality is entirely their affair.
I wasn't using "pixel-peepers" as a derogatory label. You've labelled it that way, not I.Smeggypants, sharpness where the lens has focused is extremely desirable; it doesn't suddenly become sharp everywhere else; in fact the bokeh is better because it hasn't had the noise sharpened later (sometimes unavoidable around the edges).
Using 'pixel peepers' as a derogatory comment is silly and boring. Every single person on this site is concerned with quality, otherwise they would have a point and shoot. How far they go in search of that quality is entirely their affair.
Quality and 'sharpness' aren't mutually inclusive. There's loads more attributes to the quality of an image than just sharpness. I have noticed a lot of people are fixated on sharpness though. Again that's not a derogatory comment just an observation.
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Posted 05/03/2014 - 18:02
Link
Smeggy- I used the pixel peeper term - so throw the flak at me! I am happy with my pending purchase and will surely share!
Mac
Mac
Smeggypants wrote:
Quality and 'sharpness' aren't mutually inclusive. There's loads more attributes to the quality of an image than just sharpness. I have noticed a lot of people are fixated on sharpness though. Again that's not a derogatory comment just an observation.
Darkmunk wrote:
It has definitely become silly.
My comment about grease on the lens was definitely silly (hands up, massive exaggeration obviously), I did also say I love both my K5 mark ones. But the iis is demonstrably sharper, which leaves me to concentrate on the rest.
Yet no one has been able to show this in any normal image viewing conditions. the only time it's remotely visible is when enlarging to pixel peeping conditions.It has definitely become silly.
My comment about grease on the lens was definitely silly (hands up, massive exaggeration obviously), I did also say I love both my K5 mark ones. But the iis is demonstrably sharper, which leaves me to concentrate on the rest.
Quote:
Smeggypants, sharpness where the lens has focused is extremely desirable; it doesn't suddenly become sharp everywhere else; in fact the bokeh is better because it hasn't had the noise sharpened later (sometimes unavoidable around the edges).
Using 'pixel peepers' as a derogatory comment is silly and boring. Every single person on this site is concerned with quality, otherwise they would have a point and shoot. How far they go in search of that quality is entirely their affair.
I wasn't using "pixel-peepers" as a derogatory label. You've labelled it that way, not I.Smeggypants, sharpness where the lens has focused is extremely desirable; it doesn't suddenly become sharp everywhere else; in fact the bokeh is better because it hasn't had the noise sharpened later (sometimes unavoidable around the edges).
Using 'pixel peepers' as a derogatory comment is silly and boring. Every single person on this site is concerned with quality, otherwise they would have a point and shoot. How far they go in search of that quality is entirely their affair.
Quality and 'sharpness' aren't mutually inclusive. There's loads more attributes to the quality of an image than just sharpness. I have noticed a lot of people are fixated on sharpness though. Again that's not a derogatory comment just an observation.
Posted 05/03/2014 - 18:07
Link
Darkmunk wrote:
I said I would leave this thread, but I have a question
Everything you have said suggests you DO in fact need to do something, whether in camera or later to get the two outputs more or less the same.
So how does that make them equal?
Surely that proves that the filter-less system is inherently sharper?
I suggest that the amount of PP you describe above is far more than most people want to have to do to their images. If the critical part of the image is already sharp, there is no need for fancy masking to maintain a buttery bokeh or whatever, because simple output (device) sharpening is enough.
Maybe some people find that the results they get from their lowly AA filtered cameras already sharp enough? Sharpness which is mostly dictated by the lens and aperture used anyway
I said I would leave this thread, but I have a question
Everything you have said suggests you DO in fact need to do something, whether in camera or later to get the two outputs more or less the same.
So how does that make them equal?
Surely that proves that the filter-less system is inherently sharper?
I suggest that the amount of PP you describe above is far more than most people want to have to do to their images. If the critical part of the image is already sharp, there is no need for fancy masking to maintain a buttery bokeh or whatever, because simple output (device) sharpening is enough.
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Posted 05/03/2014 - 18:08
Link
Simonmac wrote:
Smeggy- I used the pixel peeper term - so throw the flak at me!
[/quote]You mean Darkmunk ? I wasn't throwing flak at anyone for using the term, in fact I was on the receiving end of it
Smeggy- I used the pixel peeper term - so throw the flak at me!
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Posted 05/03/2014 - 18:18
Link
Sorry- what I meant was that I raised it first by stating the the 's' was for pixel peepers..... I was trying to divert the flak!
Only the best of intentions!
Mac
Only the best of intentions!
Mac
Smeggypants wrote:
You mean Darkmunk ? I wasn't throwing flak at anyone for using the term, in fact I was on the receiving end of it [/quote]
Simonmac wrote:
Smeggy- I used the pixel peeper term - so throw the flak at me!
Smeggy- I used the pixel peeper term - so throw the flak at me!
Posted 05/03/2014 - 18:19 - Helpful Comment
Link
Simonmac wrote:
Sorry- what I meant was that I raised it first by stating the the 's' was for pixel peepers..... I was trying to divert the flak!
Only the best of intentions!
Ahhh gotcha. Well I agree it is
Sorry- what I meant was that I raised it first by stating the the 's' was for pixel peepers..... I was trying to divert the flak!
Only the best of intentions!
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Posted 05/03/2014 - 18:24
Link
I have still ordered the 's' though!
I have a routine that follows RAW into AfterShot pro following into PSP.
I hope that my results aren't too bad if you check my Flickr account. I have only used RAW for a year or so.
Equipment- Praktica MTL3, Nikkormat, Canon Ftb, Canon T70, Pentax Spotmatic SP500, Pentax ME super, Nikon F60, Nikon F80, Pentax K100d Super, Pentax K200D, Pentax Kr...........
Just for the record!
Mac
I have a routine that follows RAW into AfterShot pro following into PSP.
I hope that my results aren't too bad if you check my Flickr account. I have only used RAW for a year or so.
Equipment- Praktica MTL3, Nikkormat, Canon Ftb, Canon T70, Pentax Spotmatic SP500, Pentax ME super, Nikon F60, Nikon F80, Pentax K100d Super, Pentax K200D, Pentax Kr...........
Just for the record!
Mac
414 posts
12 years
Bolton
Haha
Sometimes I'm serious and sometimes not, but I consider sarcasm an artform. Which is it today?