Does that really address the points in my last post, John?

For anyone -
In "threads of this topic type", surely people want to compare the characteristics of different lenses, not the PP skills of different photographers (interesting though that might also be). Is an 800px image able to indicate those lens differences adequately? Are the 100% crops helpful or have I wasted my time?

Philip

John,
So in threads of this topic type, is it helpful to post an additional 100% crop from the original image of the posted downsized (800px) photo, or is it a waste of time and effort?

Philip

That was my thought also, Adrian, but I assumed it to be a (band width?) restriction of the web site. That is why I have been including a 100% crop after each of my example shots.

Philip

Sorry, Louise, I missed this. The lens used was the 18-135mm WR zoom on a K-5. Thank you for your comment - I hate the cold so I took many of the shots from inside the car!

Philip

Recession leads another business into liquidation.

Philip

These were shot recently at West Wycombe, Bucks, on a Pentax K-5 with the SMC Pentax FA 1:2 35mm lens.

#1 is most of the unedited OOC Jpeg of St Lawrence Church; #2 is a 100% crop from the same Jpeg with no extra sharpening:





#3 is most of the unedited OOC Jpeg of the Dashwood Mausoleum; #4 is a 100% crop from the same Jpeg with no extra sharpening:





Philip

If it is not present in camera Jpegs, it would seem to be a software problem rather than the camera, as others have advised. Assuming that you have displayed the complete (downsized) frame, the aspect ratio should be closer to 2:3, e.g. for a K-5 a width of 526 should have a height of 794 not 800. So the complete image is there plus 6 extra pixel rows, 5 at the top and 1 at the bottom. But no idea why - sorry.

Philip

These were shot recently at Hughenden Church, Bucks, on a Pentax K-5 with the SMC Pentax FA 1:1.4 50mm lens.

This old lamp was shot against a bright grey sky - #1 is most of the OOC Jpeg; #2 is a 100% crop from the lamp plus default sharpening in PSP X4.
#1


#2



This is one of many wonderful stained glass windows in the church; #3 is most of the OOC Jpeg; #4 is a 100% crop of the centre right section plus default sharpening in PSP X4.
#3


#4



I like this lens very much.

Philip

Several times a year for many years I have driven down to Marlow to enjoy a meal in the town and a stroll along the banks of the Thames. A good place to stop is Marlow Lock, where one can sit down, relax, and watch the working of the gates:



But see what happened after H&S got involved at the end of 2012 - the low chain link fence has been replaced by the prison cell railings, ruining the view from the bench seats of the boats passing through the lock:



Philip

In your first statement above, you seem to imply that the identical simple processes applied to both images affect their differences. (Incidentally no compression was applied to the crops when saved.) Presumably in the portraits the focus of interest is around the eyes. However, both full size hi-res images show clearly the individual hairs near the model's right eye, but her eyebrows and skin texture seem clearer in the K-5 II images, all this despite the 1.4x larger head in the IIs image. The same can be seen in the crops, which suggests that images from the II and the IIs did not degrade differently during this crop and save process.

It would be pointless for anyone to follow the advice in your 2nd and 3rd statements above, because the test images give them unscientific, conflicting and/or inconclusive evidence to assess. You have already dismissed the studio shots, because they do look better from the II. The portrait shots could also be dismissed, as in the previous paragraph. It is unfair to compare the canal images as they are very different due to: 1. the seasonal changes to the general content; 2. a different canal boat; 3. being shot at different magnifications - the II at f=37.5mm and the IIs at f=47.5mm; 4. being shot 4 hours apart in the day so the lighting is from different angles, enhancing the contrast in the details of the IIs image; 5. the sky being well blown in the II image, masking any details that might have been in the tangle of twigs at the top.

Each of the K-5 series of cameras can produce excellent quality images, and any owners will probably be delighted with their purchase (just as I am) - that is not at issue here. Your opinion about the K-5 IIs would be fine (and might be correct), were it not attached to the evidence presented in the review, evidence that appears to be used in a "sort of scientific" way that, if not scrutinised, seems to support your opinion. Although images from the IIs might be sharper than those from the II, it is clear that the evidence so far is either invalid and/or inconclusive. Therefore, so far, it remains unresolved as to whether any differences will actually be visible in carefully processed prints up to perhaps A2 (or 24x16 inch) or even beyond.

Philip