So how good is the K-5 sensor

Seems to be a lot of chatter about sensors?

Years ago the same argument was on film brand. What changed?

I tend to think that the sensor does not make the final image.
Although the D7000 uses the same sensor, it's a different animal to the K-5.

If all EXIF data were removed from images, how many people would be able to identify one "marks" image from another?

As mentioned above with the reference to speakers, there's more to an image than a sensor. That said, there are those that think CCD are better than CMOS?

Great images on film... what a minefield those days were.

Best regards

You can see the difference between cameras with the same sensor because it depends also upon the processing.

Fair enough with JPEGs, but also RAW capture is not totally free from processing either. The output from the various photosites has to be combined and mixed up to make a continuous image and colours have to be guessed and averaged by the camera.

Lovely vague statement there, but in essence what I'm saying is that the way this is all done will affect the final result.

It does for low light shooting if one sensor is noisy as hell and another is clean.

I do agree John, also as far as RAW goes with its "processing" hence Mr Rockwells term of "true raw", yet he negates to bring in the chemical development issues.

There may be those out there that could say that an image was taken on a "xyz" camera but thats a thin may be.

I'm forever impressed by the IQ of my istD yet have never had large prints done from it, so I can't say it equals or betters another model.

Seeing images on screen along side another model does show subtle differences, yet once they are up on a web site or printed it's nigh impossible to say which is what.

Best regards

I believe that my K10D is lower noise than my K7 for low light?

But this goes back to time scales. There are other bodies that did low light, low noise before we got the K5 and if low light shooting was important or required, you had the opportunity to do it at least two years ago. Maybe not with Pentax but the facility was and still is there.

Best regards

Although the rules are being rewritten yet again with the new models, the general principle will be lower MP count = lower noise.

So the *istDS is less noisy than the K10D.

However, as the electronics improve also, this may well mean there are now lower noise higher pixel density cameras, at least it looks that way.

What I liked about the K-r was the sharp noise structure at the highest ISO. I could live with that and use it to advantage.

The K-r mey yet be the "killer" selling model. Don't get me wrong, for those photo techies that read the tech details of the paper, the K-5 is a must. For the general public, point and shoot and "I want top notch image quality at the cheapest price" brigade, the K-r is probably a god send.

Best regards

And it looks good too and you can get it in different colours, quite funny how successful that is.

I'm one of them, for lower ISO which i mostly shoot at the CCD offers more uniform photos and higher dynamic range.

It's also a must for those of us who look at the sample pics at high ISO and go "Wow!"

More Comparison Shots,
Well as this thread concerns the K5 sensor I thought it wise to add these here instead of starting yet another K5 thread, apologies to Mike for the hijacking.

Just been out in the garden between the showers for some ISO test shots with the K5, see what you think.

These are all handheld, and with the exception of the last shot they are all selected area crops from the full size file, the last one
is the 6400 shot simply resized to 800pixels wide.
Other than been saved at medium compresion none of the files have been tampered with.
They were shot at max quality jpeg and to avoid glossing over things I put the DA* away and used my old 18-35 kit lens that I got with the istD.

ISO1600
[IMG]http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j168/impotentspider/stuff/1600.jpg[/IMG]

ISO3200
[IMG]http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j168/impotentspider/stuff/3200.jpg[/IMG]

ISO6400
[IMG]http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j168/impotentspider/stuff/6400.jpg[/IMG]

ISO6400 full image (resized)
[IMG]http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j168/impotentspider/stuff/6400a.jpg[/IMG]

Alan where do I compare them with, you call them comparison shots after all?

The higher ISO do look soft though.

V. nice Spider, K5 ISO 6400 = K7 at ISO 1600, more or less. Talking of anal-retentive pixelpeeping, I wouldn't mind seeing 200% crops at 1/25, 1/80 and 1/250 - just to check there are no shutter-blur issues!

You compare them with each other and with your own cameras images taken at the same ISO, then you discover you need a K5

I did consider using a tripod but it was cold wet and windy and I didn't want to hang about, there will be some movement blur in there due to the wind but I doubt theres any camera shake, the statue is in a raised flower bed so I was leant forward with my elbows on the wall, sorry make that WET elbows on the wall

But I was amazed at the 6400 shot, I reckon you could easily get a decent 7x5 print and not even notice the noise, printing at A3 would be a problem though

I'm happy with your examples - It's a real world example. Most pics I take are in low light without a tripod.

How do you find ISOs higher than 6400 ?

Pixel for Pixel there is not so much improvement, but the K5 has quite a bit more

It's highly unlikely because the shutter is differnt.
Of course it isn't bad to check