1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

EM5 vs. K5 vs. K5 II vs. K5 IIs

Discussion in 'Olympus Cameras' started by drd1135, Nov 11, 2012.

  1. drd1135

    drd1135 Zen Snapshooter

    Mar 17, 2011
    Southwest Virginia
    Steve
    There was some talk over on the PDML about the sample shots at DPR for the K5 replacements, the K5 II and the K5 IIs. I added the EM5 and it's better than the K5 and keeps us with the new ones through 12800. That's really good for a smaller sensor. I know it's all pixel peeping, but it's still impressive.
    Studio shot comparison: Digital Photography Review
     
    • Like Like x 3
  2. With_Eyes_Unclouded

    With_Eyes_Unclouded Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 17, 2012
    Vassilios
    Although all these "vs" comparisons should be done in "good will" (because they often lead to nasty fights...), they are sometimes representative of the level current photographic technology has reached.

    The (core) sensor in the Pentax, if I'm not mistaken, is the same as the one in the D7000, various Sony NEX, Fuji X, etc. As seen from various tests, the one in the OM-D stands quite well against it, in its various incarnations.
     
  3. krugorg

    krugorg Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jul 18, 2011
    Minnesota USA
    I was really curious how the K5 IIs, without AA-filter, would look at base ISO. It seems like the E-M5 is pretty close for detail.
     
  4. RT_Panther

    RT_Panther Mu-43 Legend

    May 4, 2011
    Texas
    vs Peter Parker....:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:


    theamazingspiderman12.
     
  5. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Dara
    Pentax uses noise reduction on the RAW files at high ISO, so it's a bit hard to do a careful comparison. Noise reduction aside, I'd be very surprised if there were non-trivial differences in IQ between the K-5 and K-5 II.

    Agreed. If the E-M5 had a strong AA filter, I'd expect to see a real difference, but it doesn't and I don't.
     
  6. With_Eyes_Unclouded

    With_Eyes_Unclouded Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 17, 2012
    Vassilios
    Having a look at the JPEG comparison, it's evident that Olympus has more efficient processing (for higher ISO).

    Furthermore, nobody will leave the RAWs unprocessed; although I'm not sure Lightroom will do a better job than the build-in algorithms.

    One curious thing I noticed... why are Pentax's RAWs so huge in file size?
     
  7. rfortson

    rfortson Mu-43 Veteran

    I have the OM-D and the K5 (not the K5II or IIs). I'm very impressed with the OM-D and it comes pretty close to the K5, but as the ISO gets higher, I get better results (more range and less noise after processing) from the K5. However, I really have to look to see it, and for all practical purposes, I find the OM-D equal.

    I've considered giving up my Pentax for the OM-D, but given the lack of long/fast glass for MFT, I'm staying with Pentax for those situations. For general photography, I use my OM-D. In fact, I've sold some of my Pentax lenses to pick up the 75 and the 14-150 (as my vacation/walk around lens).
     
  8. Chronos

    Chronos Mu-43 Regular

    129
    Oct 18, 2012
    Colorado
    Chris
    OMD vs D7000, very close. OMD lacks in dynaamic range but it holds very well with that sensor.

    Gotta say, that is one heavily used sensor for a reason!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. NJH

    NJH Mu-43 Regular

    164
    Mar 8, 2012
    South West England
    IMHO a much more important comparison would be in the areas of AF performance and the optical viewfinder v the OMD EVF. It seems to me that we are reaching the point where the review sites need to radically change the way they review cameras, the pixel peeping IQ comparisons are becoming increasingly pointless yet most reviews say almost nothing objective about how good or reliable a cameras AF is or how well the EVF works in different conditions. DPreview have at least started to address these areas but its pretty obvious reading the forums to see how many questions there are in these areas that the formal reviews don't yet cut it.

    As a matter of point the big interesting thing for me in the newer Pentax cameras is the supposedly much improved AF system but where are the objective tests showing how much better it is? I had similar issues trying to find out about how effective Pentax SR is, only a handful of blog sites seem to have even tested it to any meaningful degree and then on only old models. Is there solid objective test evidence for the SR on these bodies or comparison with the OMDs 5 axis IBIS?
     
  10. drd1135

    drd1135 Zen Snapshooter

    Mar 17, 2011
    Southwest Virginia
    Steve
    I wan't really trying to compare the two systems. What caught my attention was how the mu43 sensor could reasonably compete with the a good APS-C system at high iso. This has always been a bit of a knock against mu43.

    It's funny how we all look for different distinguishing features. For me, AF has gotten sufficiently fast for all the cameras I consider. I can notice high iso behavior because I shoot in low light so often. VF matters but I can work with either eVF or optical.
     
  11. With_Eyes_Unclouded

    With_Eyes_Unclouded Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 17, 2012
    Vassilios
    Steve, do you mean noise only, or also DR at high ISO and the ability to pull sufficient detail in post? Because, personally, noise itself has never been a huge issue even over ISO3200, since noise filters in LR, DxO (and obviously in dedicated noise reduction software also) work quite well.
     
  12. drd1135

    drd1135 Zen Snapshooter

    Mar 17, 2011
    Southwest Virginia
    Steve
    Noise does matter, but certainly DR as well. When I look at Raw results, I used to see obvious differences for the Pens and the better APS-C cameras. Not so much with the EM5 and other bodies with the newer 16 mp sensors.
     
  13. With_Eyes_Unclouded

    With_Eyes_Unclouded Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 17, 2012
    Vassilios
    Makes sense; this was/is my experience too.
     
  14. NJH

    NJH Mu-43 Regular

    164
    Mar 8, 2012
    South West England
    I agree with all the above points but more and more we are looking at edge cases to find differences between cameras. Many may disagree with me but IMHO general use system cameras are all about being able to do as many of those edge cases as possible, the compact high IQ camera problem has already been solved. To put things another way when comparing a K5 to an EM5 I want to know is the AF better on the K5 at doing things such as subject tracking, and is the VF better in difficult conditions. If the answer to both of those is not really or not much than frankly there isn't really much point to the K5 beyond ergonomics/personal choice.
     
  15. Microman

    Microman Mu-43 Regular

    36
    Jan 16, 2012
    I'm not sure about those dpreview studio shots. There are minor changes in light, if I'm not mistaken the lenses differ and each camera exposes and processes images differently. That said, I find the results of most micro 4/3 sensors a little muddy, compared to APS-C and full frame sensors. Contrast seems higher too. Also, I have to work harder to get the right colors out of micro 4/3 cameras. There's a lot of detail in the EM-5's pictures though and that leaves some room for noise reduction. The images from the Pentax K-5 IIs look a little cleaner and slightly more detailed, especially in the shadows. I like the colors better too.
     
  16. Pecos

    Pecos Mu-43 Top Veteran

    776
    Jan 20, 2013
    The Natural State
    New member here - hello all.
    I have a K-5 and am disappointed in the focusing of static subjects - accurate focus is frequently missed because of the large central circle to which the focusing sensor is sensitive. I think this is why the K-5 in the DPR studio shot is focused on the Queen of Hearts. The K-5II and K-5IIs are a little off, but not as much.
    I rented an E-M5 to see how it handled and what kind of images it produces. I found out focusing is spot-on, and when one sets the focusing point small using the magnification option (14X), it is possible to focus on smaller areas than with the K-5.
    As far as noise goes, the E-M5 was clearly superior at equivalent ISO readings on test shots. The P 20 1.7 shots were every bit as sharp as with my 35mm Limited Macro. Impressive camera; however, I prefer the handling and menus of the K-5.
     
  17. NJH

    NJH Mu-43 Regular

    164
    Mar 8, 2012
    South West England
    On the subject of DPR comparison shots: basically IMHO I would place next to zero confidence in it for comparing noise for several reasons. Fundamentally they don't and can't make the exposure exactly the same from testing one camera to the next one. There are loads of other issues such as the lens used, non-flat focus plain issues on some lenses etc., jpeg v jpeg, raw comparison based on an utterly irrelevant Adobe comparison with default parameters etc. etc. Really it staggers me how many people waste so much time on their forums debating those comparison shots.

    To see a genuinely useful comparison one has to use 2 cameras with their respective typical lenses and shoot them side by side on real world subjects. Anything else is a waste of time IMHO. A good example is here:
    Review of the Fujifilm X-E1
    and the thread on a Fuji forum from where I found it:
    X-E1 compared to EOS 5D Mark III - X-E1 Discussion - Fuji X Forum

    If one was to look at the DPR studio shots though one could easily believe the Fuji X cameras are the best thing since sliced bread. There good all right but it just shows up how painfully short those DPR tests are that you don't see a result like the one above.
     
  18. Pecos

    Pecos Mu-43 Top Veteran

    776
    Jan 20, 2013
    The Natural State
    Correct

    NJH, you are correct. That is why I shot the same scene in the same light with my K-5 and the rented E-M5. I found that at comparable ISO, the E-M5 with PL 20mm 1.7 had as much - if not more - detail, and less noise than the K-5 with the 35mm Macro 2.8 Limited (same aperture used). I thought the K-5 was a small kit, but wow.
     
  19. NJH

    NJH Mu-43 Regular

    164
    Mar 8, 2012
    South West England
    No doubt about it, images from either the OMD or GH3 taken with good glass seem to be incredibly sharp and detailed.

    The K5 ISTR had a fairly strong AA filter? I have noted a bit of a feeding frenzy other the new one without the AA filter but frankly what they should have done is just get the AA filter right in the first place rather than pulling a fast one by releasing two versions of the same camera.