K-5IIs - more discussion

If the shots were RAW I don't think we could see them on the internet

I don't think the precise quantification of these differences really matters much.

The IIs is clearly not a quantum leap in IQ. It does appear to be a quantum light in low light focusing, so a very worthwhile upgrade for those who use it in those situations and a handy upgrade for everyone else.

If you've had a K5 for a couple of years and a few bob under the floorboards then it seems worthwhile to get trade-in value for a II/IIs before a new model increases the supply of used K5's and prices drop. The K5II/s will presumably fall too but maybe not so much if the next model is high end APS-C leaving the K5II/s mid range. And you get a brand new two year warranty. The bit extra sharpness and slightly lower noise is a bonus. That's what I reckon anyway from seeing all these dicussions thread.

The cavities between my joists are empty so I shall wait for the next quantum leap, which is hopefully an 'entry level' full frame which I shall dream of whilst keeping my K5 as a second, or mouch more likely, only body.

Honestly, anyone with less time on their hands would read this and think what a bunch of geeks peering very closely at photos of jumper fibres. We are aren't we. Anyone got some photos of dust so we can do a more accurate comparison? I'll check the thread again in 53 pages time after I've polished my pointlessly large lens collection.

Hi Nigel, I did state in the post (several times) the method of processing. They were converted to jpeg in Adobe Camera Raw with only a levels adjustment, nothing else whatsoever. I think this would qualify as a minimal amount of processing and would certainly not introduce a multitude of automatic adjustments. The crucial point is that they were all processed in exactly the same way.

Regards
David

I think we should end this topic now!! My problem is that when someone responds to the post I am compelled to write something else! Stop it please so I won't be tempted!

Best wishes
David

Good article Gary ... I think this sums it up ....

Maybe this never ending search can influence the descriptions of a tiny tiny improvement into prose like 'much better', 'miles more detail', 'incredible, 'amazing'. And why the rest of us see it as hyperbole and not being inline with the actual performance of the respective cams.

You can't see RAWs on a home PC either without some conversion to bitmap going on, so can't see how that is relevant

It was meant to be a more general point about web picture comparisons, and I was not saying that David's shots were definately not a valid comparison, but just that we need to be aware of the methods and processes going on in the background.

As we are now saying, the shots posted are not RAWs but in fact ACR conversions. Now ACR will contain camera profiles for individual models, of which we are dealing with two different ones here. Also David shoots DNGs, and this file will contain metadata including the camera Custom Image Parameters (namely a master preset and fine tuning options including 3 sharpness parameters amongst others). ACR can read a wide range of DNG metadata and it is difficult to know precisely the extent to which each of these metadata parameters affect the starting point of a clean fresh edit.

David stated the camera settings were the same, but even if he went through and precisely checked each individual custom image paramater on both bodies (I don't think he was that specific?) we don't know whether there have been any changes to the profiling of these parameters by Pentax since introducing the Mk11 bodies, nor the result of the conversion programs 'interpretation' of that data.

David has already stated he has applied no custom adjustments other than level, and I've no reason to disbelieve him.

If the differences between cameras can't withstand a conversion from RAW to TIF or JPG regardless of what manufacturers might hardburn into their profiles and decoding routines, then those differences aren't worth worrying about IMO

David has said absolutely nothing at all about his camera custom image settings -it is not clear if he even knows what they were. And until it is clear precisely how ACR (or any RAW converter) applies this metadata, it is difficult, I think, to be certain that the levels of visable sharpness difference between the two is not in fact due to slight variations in the processing algorithims.

Interestingly, and I admit I don't know if its significant, but Davids K5 mk1 shot contains less image data than his K511s shot - just had a quick look at the image properties and both shots are the same dimensions but have different file sizes.

I wonder is it possible for us to see the full exif data? This would contain the custom setting recorded by the camera.

I think if he's made any custom image settings, he'd a] know what they are and b] remember doing it.

David has posted 50% crops here. There are several places you can view full sized test images of both cameras at ALL ISO settings.

None of these comparisons deviate in level of differences, if any, between the cameras.

The only thing that is wildly deviating is the language used to describe those alleged differences.

Perhaps it's more worthwhile looking at the custom profiles of the commentators

I think it's clear that those who can perceive a difference will be interested in the K-5IIs, those who can't won't.

There's no point continually repeating the same things - interested parties will judge for themselves, which is why pictures are posted.

Checkout the images on page 2 of this thread. In the first pair, the K5 MK1 image contained more data.

Andrew

That to me sounds pretty much identical to saying that whatever the evidence, whether jpegs or raws are used you aren't going to believe it? I hope that isn't really the case.

But, not having either of the cameras in question myself, I'll make this offer. If someone cares to send me two 'identical' raws from the two cameras I'll edit the metadata so that, to the raw converter, they appear to come from the same camera and process them with an open source raw converter who's behavious is known and not proprietary and then publish them here.

I read the same sentence as you, but we seem to have wholly different interpretations of its meaning.

I *think* McGregNi expressed the view that for the results to be valid and incontrovertible, the only difference between the two test photos should be the cameras used. Isn't that simply a statement of what scientific method demands as a minimum? Ideally also, if the images are published here, the EXIF should be stripped and the images not labelled with the camera version - at least then, the prejudices of the viewer would not play a part.

Andrew