K5 v K10 iso 100


otc

Senior Member
Feb 8, 2006
2,728
17
38
www.flickr.com
#1
Copied this from Dpreview,courtesy of Kevin

> Settings were: RAW DNG with both cameras
> ACR: manual WB
> Exposure comp: 0
> Blacks: 0 (!)
> NO sharpening or noise reduction
> Lift Shadows: 50 (!!!)
>
> both shots were ISO 100
>
> btw I know that these images are not 'good looking'... this was just for testing reasons how strong I could use the "shadow-lifter"... and I think with a little Noise Reduction one can easily gain one or two stops of DR with this method. or at least I think I might often do that ;-)
>
> Kevin
> dpr://galleries/5046731454/photos/658936
> dpr://galleries/5046731454/photos/658937

Left is image of K5 and right is image of K10d.

What do you think of IQ on low iso?:)

marcus
 

felixcat8888

Senior Member
May 8, 2005
9,264
17
38
52
Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
#2
Copied this from Dpreview,courtesy of Kevin

> Settings were: RAW DNG with both cameras
> ACR: manual WB
> Exposure comp: 0
> Blacks: 0 (!)
> NO sharpening or noise reduction
> Lift Shadows: 50 (!!!)
>
> both shots were ISO 100
>
> btw I know that these images are not 'good looking'... this was just for testing reasons how strong I could use the "shadow-lifter"... and I think with a little Noise Reduction one can easily gain one or two stops of DR with this method. or at least I think I might often do that ;-)
>
> Kevin
> dpr://galleries/5046731454/photos/658936
> dpr://galleries/5046731454/photos/658937

Left is image of K5 and right is image of K10d.

What do you think of IQ on low iso?:)

marcus

Sorry bro cannot view them leh
 

otc

Senior Member
Feb 8, 2006
2,728
17
38
www.flickr.com
#5
Tks, bro.

I tot when I saw this, it just confirm my suspicion at iso 100 or 200 for K10d.

Without a doubt, K5 beats K10d hands down for high iso and that high iso allows many other probabilities for better pictures, beside higher mega pixels.

Hm, I am likely to pick up this K5 too:)

Tks for the link.

marcus
 

otc

Senior Member
Feb 8, 2006
2,728
17
38
www.flickr.com
#7
Hmm, I guess K5 is pretty good at low iso too, isn't it?
The bottom pictures does shows more noise or grain ie on the right hand side for K10d.

The top picture shows more vibrant colors out from K10D than K5:), sharper or more edge details...

marcus
 

fengwei

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 25, 2004
14,462
12
0
Queenstown
www.pbase.com
#8
The bottom pictures does shows more noise or grain ie on the right hand side for K10d.

The top picture shows more vibrant colors out from K10D than K5:), sharper or more edge details...

marcus
Those are obvious quick handheld snaps from a shop, can't tell if there is any focusing problem w/ either camera, or even handshake. K5 photo is obvious a little bit brighter than the K10D one, which we know would affect the colors. I wouldn't come to that conclusion based on these two snaps :)
 

oceanpriest

Senior Member
Apr 24, 2010
3,455
24
38
Ghim Moh
#10
The bottom pictures does shows more noise or grain ie on the right hand side for K10d.

The top picture shows more vibrant colors out from K10D than K5:), sharper or more edge details...

marcus
are you going to buy k-5? later can show us your macro shoot taken with k10d and k5 :bsmilie:
 

otc

Senior Member
Feb 8, 2006
2,728
17
38
www.flickr.com
#12
Those are obvious quick handheld snaps from a shop, can't tell if there is any focusing problem w/ either camera, or even handshake. K5 photo is obvious a little bit brighter than the K10D one, which we know would affect the colors. I wouldn't come to that conclusion based on these two snaps :)
detail seems on par leh. for both at low iso, which is expected..

Thanks fengwei, nigt86mare.

Actually my main concern is the colors. My Kx compare to K10 D, the colors out of camera seems more washed out, lighter for Kx and hence my prefernce is still K10D. I am not sure of K20D. Ofcourse up to iso 500 to 600 is fine in noise for both K10 or 20 and K5 I am sure is good.

Its the out put colors that I am checking. See the first set of pictures above K5 V K10D at low iso 100. K20d is cmos and K10d is CCD sensor. Thanks for your opinion.

marcus
 

oceanpriest

Senior Member
Apr 24, 2010
3,455
24
38
Ghim Moh
#13
show? u also buy lah... :bsmilie:
wait till I get red pocket first ;)

Actually my main concern is the colors. My Kx compare to K10 D, the colors out of camera seems more washed out, lighter for Kx and hence my prefernce is still K10D.
My friend who owns kx and k10d also said the same thing. Is it because CCD vs CMOS stuff?
 

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
#14
Thanks fengwei, nigt86mare.

Actually my main concern is the colors. My Kx compare to K10 D, the colors out of camera seems more washed out, lighter for Kx and hence my prefernce is still K10D. I am not sure of K20D. Ofcourse up to iso 500 to 600 is fine in noise for both K10 or 20 and K5 I am sure is good.

Its the out put colors that I am checking. See the first set of pictures above K5 V K10D at low iso 100. K20d is cmos and K10d is CCD sensor. Thanks for your opinion.

marcus
i don't really care about colors, because eventually you will just need to increase vibrance a little and it will be there. :)

a gentler approach is what i prefer... so that more details are retained.

if i'm not wrong the k10d had problems with red channel always bursting its banks.
 

otc

Senior Member
Feb 8, 2006
2,728
17
38
www.flickr.com
#15
something like that for Kx, Just pick from flickr


ysh by luctomar, on Flickr

and K10d,


young by luctomar, on Flickr

No matter how I increase saturation of hue or other setting on image, I dun seems to have the colors of that K10d from Kx.

Night86mare, you come from K10 to k20d but you are more into landscape. Macro is a little difference:)

Well any other person to share on that.?

Ocenpriest, I dun want to jump in yet, otherwise, got to unload for my boy to use leh bsmilie:

marcus
 

Last edited:

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
#16
Night86mare, you come from K10 to k20d but you are more into landscape. Macro is a little difference:)

Well any other person to share on that.?

Ocenpriest, I dun want to jump in yet, otherwise, got to unload for my boy to use leh bsmilie:

marcus

i don't seem to have any problems with the k-r so far...



but i haven't had the chance to spin it during sunset yet.. :)

btw, for both your images posted, both indicate that they are taken with k-x, if you click the image link....

maybe it 's lighting difference? :dunno:

it seems that the pictures are yours - did you by any chance use flash for the k10d picture, and leave it out for the k-x ?

"thank you shutterscreamer, just shot this morning with a high iso, without flash lights. The fly was still for me to compose and captured many shots even with burst of lights. The air was still and has been a blessing. "
 

Last edited:

Gengh

New Member
May 6, 2007
1,984
0
0
Florida
#18
Not sure if K10D and K100D are similar where colours are concerned. When I switched from K100D to K20D, I also noticed that the K20D had more subdued colours (from unprocessed raw file). But it wasn't a problem pushing the saturation up a bit to get the punchy colours back. In fact, sometimes the K100D colours were just a little bit too saturated I think....

Marcus, the first fly pic looks like it might be +1EV compared to the second one, partly contributing to the washed out colours.
 

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
#19
Marcus, the first fly pic looks like it might be +1EV compared to the second one, partly contributing to the washed out colours.
i honestly think it has to do with the use of flash and not exposure... flash gives directional lighting, whereas the latter photo gives the impression of diffused lighting... :dunno:

don't really think such a huge difference is attributable to sensors..
 

pscion12

New Member
Jan 28, 2004
276
0
0
#20
Looking at the comparisons, it reminded me something that I have been meaning to ask. Does anybody knows how to reduce the vertical banding in high iso for the k10d? or at least post-process it out.




Regards
 

Top Bottom