Pentax K-5 vs XZ-1

[kyteflyer]

Just beginning to wonder...

Which is "best"? (just talking about web posting... for printing undoubtedly the K-5 would win out). I can't see a significant difference which would make me think DSLR is better.

sunrise with the k-5 by kyte50, on Flickr

Bright Dawn by kyte50, on Flickr

 

[Lili]

Just beginning to wonder...

Which is "best"? (just talking about web posting... for printing undoubtedly the K-5 would win out). I can't see a significant difference which would make me think DSLR is better.

sunrise with the k-5 by kyte50, on Flickr

Bright Dawn by kyte50, on Flickr

Sue, at these sizes I can see no differences

 

[kyteflyer]

Sue, at these sizes I can see no differences

Me neither. Which is why I wonder why I persist with DSLR, except for the huge $$$ investment I have made (about $4k so far but actually probably more than that). I'm actually enjoying using the XZ-1 a lot more. I suspect if I had the X-10 I would feel the same, and the new Canon G1X would probably work well for me too.

When I pixel peep on the full sizes, I can see hardly any difference either. There is marginally more noise in the XZ shot... but its really marginal. I shot both at a low ISO (100) so as to keep the noise down. So the difference really for these is in the original file size... 16Mp as opposed to 10Mp.

 

[Luckypenguin]

I think the K-5 has done well considering that it is over 1 stop under-exposed compared to the XZ-1. For a camera with a larger sensor like the K-5 it should be possible to recover the detail lost in the shadows if the exposure was raised to match that of the XZ-1. It wouldn't be visible at this resolution, but an aperture setting of f/18 won't do the K-5 any favours either.

 

[Andrewteee]

I have printed XZ-1 files and I was not pleased. That said, I should experiment more with them.

Between these two extremes there are a range of cameras. Seems the Nikon 1 is making people happy, though I've not printed any yet.

My Ricoh GRD4 prints amazingly well and looks great on screen.

The XZ-1 image looks flat to me in comparison.

 

[kyteflyer]

The XZ-1 image looks flat to me in comparison.

Are you speaking of XZ-1 images generally, or of this particular one? I have not been finding them flat, at all. I love the GRD3 shots I have done but I dont find them a lot better than the XZ, if at all...

 

[kyteflyer]

I think the K-5 has done well considering that it is over 1 stop under-exposed compared to the XZ-1. For a camera with a larger sensor like the K-5 it should be possible to recover the detail lost in the shadows if the exposure was raised to match that of the XZ-1. It wouldn't be visible at this resolution, but an aperture setting of f/18 won't do the K-5 any favours either.

Thanks for that critique. I had not really paid a lot of attention, I thought I had opened the aperture more than that. I'll put up a couple soonish if I can find them with settings which are more comparable (well thats not going to happen this time. I'll pay more attention next time)

 

[Luckypenguin]

Actually I just noticed that K-5 was set at ISO 200, so using the K-5 as the base (f/18, 1/20, ISO 200) vs the XZ-1 (f/7.1, 1/80, ISO 100);

XZ-1

Aperture: +2 2/3 stops
Shutter: -2
ISO: -1

= +1/3 stop on the XZ-1

So,the exposures actually ARE almost equal, but the XZ-1 image still does appear to be noticeably the brighter of the two. Of course if these are developed from jpegs there could be all manner of in-camera processing happening to make the difference, particularly in the Olympus.

 

[Armanius]

When it comes to panorama photos for web use, I can't see much if any difference at all. But like Nic said, on the K5, you should be able to recover the detail on the blacks. For me, the biggest difference that I treasure in a big sensor camera vs a small sensor camera is selective DOF.

 

[Armanius]

Actually I just noticed that K-5 was set at ISO 200, so using the K-5 as the base (f/18, 1/20, ISO 200) vs the XZ-1 (f/7.1, 1/80, ISO 100);

XZ-1

Aperture: +2 2/3 stops
Shutter: -2
ISO: -1

= +1/3 stop on the XZ-1

So,the exposures actually ARE almost equal, but the XZ-1 image still does appear to be noticeably the brighter of the two. Of course if these are developed from jpegs there could be all manner of in-camera processing happening to make the difference, particularly in the Olympus.

This is getting way beyond my pay grade.

 

[kyteflyer]

When it comes to panorama photos for web use, I can't see much if any difference at all. But like Nic said, on the K5, you should be able to recover the detail on the blacks. For me, the biggest difference that I treasure in a big sensor camera vs a small sensor camera is selective DOF.

Agreed on the DoF issue. Can't do that with a compact unless its macro... and even then... hrmmm

TBH I didnt actually *want* more information in the black areas... perhaps that decision means that the shots don't appeal to a lot of people.

This is getting way beyond my pay grade.

LOL! Me too really, but its interesting to see what those in the know can tell me about what I did

 

[Luckypenguin]

When it comes to panorama photos for web use, I can't see much if any difference at all. But like Nic said, on the K5, you should be able to recover the detail on the blacks. For me, the biggest difference that I treasure in a big sensor camera vs a small sensor camera is selective DOF.

Armando, I think you might have hit the nail on the head there re: large sensor/small sensor cameras. A friend of mine recently showed me a picture he took of the ocean/sky with an 8MP phone camera in perfect lighting and asked me if a DSLR (he is unaware of any non-DSLRs having large sensors :smile would have done a better job. Given that there was no real detail to resolve, the lighting was right, the colours were vibrant, I had to say that most likely it would not have (Now, granted an XZ-1 is quite a distance removed from a phone camera, but we're still comparing two different classes of camera and sensor size here). Take it out of that environment, introduce difficult lighting, subject/background distance differential, fine details, and the story would be different. The ability to exert more control over DOF is a big plus in favour of larger sensors since selective focus mirrors the way our own eyes will only focus on one object at a time. I find it hard to do a direct comparison between a fixed-lens compact and an interchangeable lens DSLR since even ignoring any differences in basic image quality, the latter offers so much more flexibility at the expense of size and weight. Thankfully we now have CSCs like the NEX, Samsung, and m4/3 in the middle ground; it's a good time to be a photographer!

 

[andy_g]

I can't see much difference here. I too have an older Pentax DSLR and an XZ-1. With good light I can't see much difference On my monitor between the pictures I took with these cameras.
Of course, even in easy condition, XZ-1 is not comparable to K5 with a good fixed lens when speaking about large prints. Frankly, I find that most times XZ-1 image quality is more than acceptable for my purposes.

 

[BillN]

Sue

why are you using f18?

 

[kyteflyer]

Sue

why are you using f18?

It was an accident. LOL! I had been shooting for starbursts on streetlamps earlier and forgot to change it. oh well. Does anyone not make poobahs?

 

[drd1135]

This is the kind of shot that won't show much difference. A high detail shot or a portrait might be a different case, especially if we had low light.