K5 Low contrast

I'm really happy with the K5, no excuses any more!
However I have noticed the images aren't as punchy as my lovely old K10D.
Is this just a characteristic? or is it connected with the increase in sensor resolution?
Is it possible that the lens can only pass a certain amount of 'information' and eking-out that info into a bigger file reduces the concentration? Just a wild guess...

I'm guessing it has to do with the CCD sensor in th K10D...

I recently got my lad a *istDS and there is a certain 'punchy' quality that comes from its images too, in comparison to my K-x...

That said... There must be benefits to the newer CMOS sensors...

I agree. The Ist Ds and K10 give a punchier picture - but that is to do with the CCD sensor. I really noticed the difference when I went from my beloved Ds (RIP :cry to a K20D.

I am used to it now and think the K-5 gives better results than the K20D did.

Ah, yes of course, that'll be the clincher in this - the K10D to K20D comparison. Thanks Glyn.

I find similar results when comparing the IQ of the K-m (ccd) and K-x (cmos). The K-m images definitely have a different, warmer, punchier quality which at first glance makes them appear better. However, look a little closer and the K-x is actually streets ahead, especially in low light situations (K-5 is better still).

All of the contrast, punch and warmth is easily enhanced during PP'ing anyway, but it's more difficult to recover images from the K-m that have noise in shadow areas, or are a bit under-exposed.

Of my three cameras, the K-5 is definitely the best and by some margin.

Regards
David

It's interesting to note that 'Natural' was the default balance on the KX and 'Bright' is the default on the KR for jpegs despite hving a very similar Sony sensor.

I'm not surprised at the difference between CCD and CMOS sensor models as both have very different characteristics I understand.

Isn't it fair to say lenses and their coatings can be a factor too?

I seem to recall that 'Bright' was the default when I bought my K-x? I quickly changed it to 'Natural'.

I have compared the three cameras using the same lenses and the IQ is very different on all of them. The K-x is fairly close to the K-5 in terms of the character of its images, but the K-5 has more finesse, more detail, better colour depth and a much wider dynamic range. The K-m (ccd sensor) is fabulous in good light, but is not an all-rounder like the K-x and K-5 are.

I suppose it's down to personal preferences to an extent, but I think that most people will get consistently better images in a range of lighting situations with the K-5, K-r or K-x than with the older CCD sensor cameras. In good light the playing field will be more even I suspect.

Regards
David

Agreed on both counts

I should stress that the JPEGs from the K5 are fab.
When processing the RAW file I have much more trouble getting past their standard than I used to.
Th K5 RAWs have less oomph innitially, so need more time with the saturation etc. But the ability to do almost anything with them and get away with it, just keeps putting a smile on my face - like this