Pentax IQ

From K-x on, I’m not very convinced Pentax’s improved its cameras’ IQ any significantly .. hope K5 II or K5 IIs does it any better .. wait an see ..

Hi Nuri, you already know that I think the K-x is a fantastic camera. The IQ is better on the K-5, but not massively so. The biggest difference I notice is the ability of the K-5 to pull detail from shadow areas.

If I was buying another camera it would kave to be the K-5IIs, but I will wait and see what others think before buying one. By that time they will probably have come down a little in price!

Regards
David

It would be very difficult to improve on some aspects of pentax images, especially the superb colour rendition. I have no complaints about image quality whatsoever.

However, there is one dramatic area of improvement and that lies in the vastly improved noise control on the K-5. A different level of performance completely.

Couldn't disagree more with that statement.

The K-5 IQ is much better than previous models, especially in the higher ISO range.

The IQ of the K-5II is exactly the same as the K-5 and the K-5IIs with no filter has a marginally better resolution.

Like John I have no complaints about the current IQ of pentax cameras, at the lower ISO ranges. I would like to see better IQ at higher ISO settings and of course an increased range of ISO settings.

Taking low noise pics, handheld, at night of scenes would be marvellous. ISOs in the millions. it'll come. be patient


I wont be upgrading my K-5s until a significant increase in IQ comes along

Like John says, the colour rendition of Pentax cameras is excellent. My friends who own C...n and S..y are very jealous of the accuracy of my K5 and Kx images!

I would like better (Faster/quieter) AF though

Why do so many people feel the need to modify/censor the names of other camera brands. Canon and Sony ( and indeed Nikon and other brands ) aren't profanity, they are just different brands.

I've used Pentax gear since 1986 and I've no intention of switching brands. Pentax gear is just as good as other brands and in some areas superior IMO.

But other brands aren't rubbish. There's been plenty of classic images taken with Canon, Nikon, Sony and other brands of cameras. The quality of the photo is down to the person pressing the shutter button not the brand.

'michaelblue', do you really believe that the Canon and Sony Cameras are that evil you cannot bring ourself to even type their names? I certainly don't want to take a topic in a forum that doesn't tolerate discussion of other brands into a discussion of other brands so a 'yes' or 'no' would suffice

I think you (and myself too until I realised) have been puzzled by the common references to C----n and similar things. I suspect now it is done either (a) as a tongue-in-cheek but not unfriendly metaphorical wink or (b) in the belief that it will reduce the chance of bots picking up the reference and imeediately skewing the adverts towards those marques mentioned.

Personally, I have nothing against other marques and have used most if not all of them, if I hadn't I wouldn't know that I preferred Pentax. Which of course is why I'm here on Pentax User and not somewhere else such as Nikon User, which I guess must exist in some form or another.

I Canon understand all of the fuss - Sony a name

Nikons to you Smeggy!!

There I have said it

Carl

It's merely showing coutesy to other internet users by not
wasting their time visiting this site when it doesn't
actually have what they are looking for in search engines

i.e. No Canon or Nikon articles here pal look somewhere else.

A Leica user would not Leica to come here if he was searching
for a Leica 560mm lens just because a Pentax 560mm lens was
mentioned in the same thread as Leica.... just like this ....

(Appologies to any Leica users sent here by Google )

-

Couldn't agree with you more Smeggypants. However, while we're on the subject of IQ and improvements in camera technology, all I want is improved 'dynamic range'. IMHO digital can't hold a candle to film in that respect. Yes it's wonderful that we can have gazillion megapixel sensors and noiseless images at 200,000 ISO. But very rarely can I capture all that available light and dark detail in one shot with my dear old GX20 or any other digital device.

I feel that Pentax image quality while different is as good as that of any other brand using a comparable sized sensor. However, as for me, with my limited ability, I can't see the point of upgrading until a camera manufacturer can produce a device that has a 'dynamic range' approaching that of film. Unless I win the lottery of course.

Yeah love that fritzthedog.

Algernon, there is much wisdom here. An accidental visitor on seeing the content of this forum may be won over to the Light Side as I was. May the Force be with you all.

It's just a bit of fun and mock-rivalry. No one seems to every say 'Ol***s' though do they? There must be a spirit of kin-ship there!

The K5 comes close to (negative) film I think, but the dynamic range needs to be teased out by carefully pulling back the highlights and shadows. Film seems to have that dynamic range baked in to the image from the start.

Take this negative film shot for example. On digital I'm sure the shadow areas would be deep black, if the shot was exposed to avoid unacceptably blown highlights. However on the K5 (unlike the GX20) the shadow levels could be pulled out quite well in post processing, without becoming too noisy. I think this must be something to do with the different response of film and digital sensors.

I was taught in the film era to overexpose to capture shadow detail. I never had the competency of pro friends though to manually protect the highlights in the darkroom waving my hands under the enlarger!

When I first had digital ten years ago it was point and shoot and then bridge cameras that all had blown highlights that underexposing lost the shadow detail.

In the last few years with my Sony sensored K5 (KX then KR before it) I find a much wider dynamic range. How far that will go in the coming years i'm not sure. I am sure that seeing what you are taking and useful histograms to read what is happening has transformed the ability to take more photos correctly at the time of shooting.

I am impressed though by the skill of those of you still shooting on film. It's a shame the digital back never suceeded at amateur level or we could all have cameras that did both. Very different tecniques though if switching between the two.

I'm also very happy with the IQ of the K5 and see it as quite a big step forward from previous models..the most significant changes for me being the one mentioned above...its excellent ability to recover shadow detail together with its improved dynamic range, it's not far off the perfect DSLR for landscape photography as the only thing its missing for me is a full frame sensor

Simon

In the case of negative materials, yes, over- rather than under-exposure. Of course correct exposure is the aim, but erring on the side of over-exposure yirelds better negatives.

In the case of reversal (transparency/slide) film the reverse is true. Never over-expose even a touch as this will ruin the result. Many people would under-expose by half a stop as routine. this meant no burnt out highlights and deeper, richer colours.