K5 performance

Welcome - sit down with a cup of coffee (or something stronger) and have a slow think about what you expect and what you are doing ?

I've had a look at your images in your portfolio and don't see anything particularly bad. But what I DID see (from the EXIF data) was that you have been using Av and opening the lenses wide open !

I'm willing to stand corrected but it is my belief that you need VERY expensive glass to get sharp images at wide apertures so that could be partly a reason for your disappointment ?
With my 'poor man's lenses' I often stick to f/8 nowadays and have found it makes quite a difference !

As Nigel said if you save RAW you will need to do some adjustments to bring the images 'to life'. (And you can, of course, also liven up and sharpen jpegs)

I have used both the free PDCU4 and now Photoshop Elements 11 to process my RAW images and have been amazed at the difference it can make - flat 'grey' images can be transformed to sharp vibrant results.

Have a 'play around' with the camera settings and also with the PP and, who knows, you may be surprised ?

Good luck and remember "he who dares, Rodney" !

Peter

Oh no .... you're really playing with fire there Peter

Valid point Peter, think the results from the Sigma stopped down to F4 probably reflect better performance than my belated Tamron.
Confidence restored and familiarity is possibly now the new direction, supported by the terrific responses from the forum guys.
Ps being Scottish do not believe in anything stronger than Coffee !!!

My Great Granny was from Paisley and I've inherited many of here pecuniary traits hence my reference to 'poor man's lenses' !!!

Peter

I find the use of a varied range of aperture settings makes for more of a variety of character in images. Shallow depth of field shots can really bring out depth in a photograph which would otherwise have looked flat at a much smaller aperture like f/8.0

And in other times a wider DOF with small apertures is also good too, depending on the subject matter.

The resolution of an images isn't the highest on my list of priorities though. Images can easily sharpened in the editing process if need be. I often apply local sharpening as again it all helps to give an image depth.

I've seen too many images which are sharp right across the frame, sharp from nearfield to infinity and had flat processing applied across the frame that look flat.

Billdad, get some modern Pentax glass and stick it on the front of that K-5. Other makes can be just as detailed but in my humble opinion (IMHO) they just don't reproduce color in the same way that the Pentax lenses do. I feel that pictures taken using other manufacturers lenses can often appear a bit flat straight out the camera and need more work in post processing (PP).

Go grab yourself a Pentax 18-55 zoom, it's the kit lens and they're very cheap 2nd hand but also very good. I think you'll see the difference.

I can understand what you mean as a fellow X100 owner. The colours that come out of that Fuji (and the black and white images for that matter) are sensational and in my view more pleasing than the K-5. Not sure any of the other manufacturers can match or beat it. You might also want to consider using something like the Colorchecker Passport to set up some profiles for the K-5 - then you can semi-automate Lightroom to adjust the images to a profile that you like.

Cheers,

Jon

I'm glad you took my bait, Smeggy !
I knew my comment about f/8 would draw a response !

However, I totally agree with your comments, both about DoF and what the desired effects are. My main point was that if the OP was concerned about sharpness then the use of wide apertures would not have been the best.

I stand by my suggestion that the only way to find what you are looking for is to keep looking ! And that means keeping on trying different things and not giving up.

Best regards
Peter

I felt a little bit like that with my K30 when I got it but it was mainly
psychological I think. Firstly you have spent a lot of time over a decision and a fair bit of money and you are having self doubts/guilt about spending hard earned money.
Secondly, you take it out of the box and quickly try and get some shots to look at. Often they get compared to the memory of your best shots with your previous camera. In my case I realised that some of these initial shots were taken in far from ideal light conditions etc.
It's all forgotten now,(well except the speed of the AF which plagued me yet again yesterday!)
Dave

I was amazed to read this Andrew. I found my K5 images(and from my K30) superior to those from my K10 in almost every way. Also they need less PP work.
David

PPG: http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/davidtrout

This is on topic by coincidence - I was looking today at a PDF copy of the Pentax magazine from 2006 that had an article introducing the K10.

I was surprised to see reference to '22 bit colour depth', which sounds very high for the time - but is this more of a characteristic of the CCD sensor. Certainly plenty of owners have praised the cameras colour reproduction.

Does anyone know how this '22 bit' figure relates to the 12 / 14 bit of our current models?

Maybe it's me, maybe it's my copy of the K5, David. Certainy your wonderful photographs show what the camera is capable of producing.

I've tried, honestly, taken the K5 abroad three times and for days out. It has a decent zoom lens fitted, certainly my "best" one. I've tried all my usual post-processing "tricks", shot in RAW and high quality JPEGS, you name it I've given it a go. I'm not a wealthy man and had to save hard for the camera and waited for months for its price to fall to an affordable level. I really wanted to make a success of it but I simply can't make it work for me.

The irony is, I love using it: it's such a jewel of a camera and the shutter is so smooth and quiet. It focuses so swiftly and accurately and that dynamic range is a landscape photographer's dream.

It's just that the results are so dull, flat and lifeless. Others feel the same: I know when I post images on here or Ephotozine the K5 shots will get a luke-warm response compared to those taken by the K10. It's not an exact analogy, but the results I get remind me of old time colour print films, whereas those from the K10 are like Fujifilm Velvia. (Not that this will mean much to most folks!)

I'll still use the K5, of course, to give the K10 a break as much as anything else: like its owner, it's not getting any younger! I shudder to think what the shutter count is by now. And because I've invested so much money in it.

Come rain or shine I can't think of one shot of several thousand where I feel "Wow!". The best I can achieve is "Mmm, not bad."

HHave you tried the K-5's reversal film setting or adjusting the custom image settings?

By the way the K-5 images in your gallery are monochrome so its unlikely they'll look like Velvia. Many do not comment on images unless they are in need of remedial action!

John K

It didn't give a 22 bit output; the Digital-Analogue converter was overkill as it only output 10 or 12 bit of info to the end user! I think the 22-bit sampling might have just helped get a little more useful info from the sensor!
Andy