[Adam Lucas]

Hi All,



I have a dilemma.



I like both the pentax K5 with pentax 16-50 f2.8 and olympus E5 with olympus 12-60.



Which camera combination is primed to give the sharpest and most pleasing images. I know this can be subjective however your considerations would be most useful.



I here the K5 is soft and that the E5 is superb.



Your very knowledgable views would be appreciated.



Thank you very much.



Adam

[Klaus]

The truth is never simple.



Based on what's known so far I'd say that the E-5 has a very weak AA filter thus fairly "sharp" images right out-of-the-box. However, it's not a high ISO camera.

The K5 is pretty much the opposite regarding these two characteristics - it has a strong AA filter but good high ISO capabilities.



The D7000 may be the best offer with no major weakness (nor pronounced strengthsIMHO). The A55 & 60D offer the best value I'd say.



[quote name='Adam Lucas' timestamp='1291658663' post='4791']

Hi All,



I have a dilemma.



I like both the pentax K5 with pentax 16-50 f2.8 and olympus E5 with olympus 12-60.



Which camera combination is primed to give the sharpest and most pleasing images. I know this can be subjective however your considerations would be most useful.



I here the K5 is soft and that the E5 is superb.



Your very knowledgable views would be appreciated.



Thank you very much.



Adam

[/quote]

[Guest]

[quote name='Adam Lucas' timestamp='1291658663' post='4791']

Hi All,



I have a dilemma.



I like both the pentax K5 with pentax 16-50 f2.8 and olympus E5 with olympus 12-60.



Which camera combination is primed to give the sharpest and most pleasing images. I know this can be subjective however your considerations would be most useful.



I here the K5 is soft and that the E5 is superb.



Your very knowledgable views would be appreciated.



Thank you very much.



Adam

[/quote]

What does sharpest mean? At 100% view on screen or at a given print size? A camera with more pixels but less per pixel sharpness is usally better or equal in prints compared to a camera with high per pixel sharpness but less pixels. Noise also influences sharpness as Klaus said. Thus a less noisier camera is usally sharper at high iso than a camera with lots of noise. Unless you print larger than 13x18 " on a regular basis, any modern dslr is more than sharp enough.



What does pleasing mean? Colour can and must be tweaked to ones personal tatse with every camera. Either in-camera by adjusting the jpg settings or in post in a raw converter.

Pleasing can also mean nice out-of-focus effects. The pentax should be better for this because of its larger sensor which allows for shallower depth of field. Pleasing and sharp can also mean that you always want everything in focus. Then the smaller sensor olympus might be better. Thus the term "pleasing" will not help us in recommendaning any camera as it can mean a million differnt things.



You see, buying a dslr involves spending some time to understand the technical differences. If you want better results compared to a point and shoot you need to buy the camera for your needs. So let us know what you plan to photograph with your camera, how big you intend to print and how much weight you are prepared to carry around.

[genotypewriter]

[quote name='Adam Lucas' timestamp='1291658663' post='4791']

I have a dilemma.



I like both the pentax K5 with pentax 16-50 f2.8 and olympus E5 with olympus 12-60.



...



Your very knowledgable views would be appreciated.

[/quote]

Let me offer a different perspective... with DSLRs, it's all about which is the last one standing...



Olympus DSLRs belong to a dying system. Olympus has announced that they're not going to build any more lenses and instead they're focusing on the high-end P&S market with the microFourThirds cameras and lenses. Also Olympus is stuck with their crippled crop sensor format and overly expensive lenses. At the end of the day, you don't get the claimed benefits from their smaller sensor size. But the disadvantages (noise, cost, limitation of lenses, low resolution, weight, etc.) are very real to everyday shooting. Also, the only people who say that Olympus is a sharp system are only Olympus users... think about it.



Pentax on the other hand are still going along. There might even be a possibility of a FF sensor from them some time in the future because they've stepped in to the digital medium format market rather well. They have some interesting lenses but I haven't found many of them particularly interesting. Also they have issues relating to their AF (SDM) failing, etc. if you research a bit on the net:



http://www.google.com/search?q=pentax+sdm+reliability





So I recommend either Canon, Nikon, or even Sony. Good Canon lens and sensor combinations give the best sharpness that you'll experience:



http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewriter/5080867269/



Nikon produces the most colour-wise and noise-wise pleasing images out of the cameras. Sony is similar to Nikon except in terms of noise.



Just my thoughts based on [url="http://www.flickr.com/people/genotypewriter/"]my experiences with various cameras[/url].



GTW

[Guest]

Well the E-5 is a large bulky camera; but the 12-60 is a wonderful lens. Pentax had some wonderful lenses (the new ones don't seem so good) also in the USA their support seems relatively poor (canon has very good support in USA). Olympus tends to be a fairly good with regards to support but I tend to believe the 4/3 system is 'dead'. I suppose there is some chance the GH2 sensor will make it way into a 4/3 camera (not sure if revenue support such; also not sure if the olympus lenses will hold up to a sensor with that density.



If you do not shoot raw olympus tends to deliver very good jpeg out of the camera (both with regards to resolution and colour) so that might matter. I personally developed a very strong dislike to the E3 (too many pictures came out crooked) but I really did like the 12-60.



Oh well those are some of the trade offs. I personally would probably skip both (more for system issues than camera issues) but the truth is that either one could serve you well for 5+ years (though I think the 16-50 pentax lens might be the weakest point).

[thxbb12]

[quote name='you2' timestamp='1291730981' post='4829']

Well the E-5 is a large bulky camera; but the 12-60 is a wonderful lens. Pentax had some wonderful lenses (the new ones don't seem so good) also in the USA their support seems relatively poor (canon has very good support in USA). Olympus tends to be a fairly good with regards to support but I tend to believe the 4/3 system is 'dead'. I suppose there is some chance the GH2 sensor will make it way into a 4/3 camera (not sure if revenue support such; also not sure if the olympus lenses will hold up to a sensor with that density.



If you do not shoot raw olympus tends to deliver very good jpeg out of the camera (both with regards to resolution and colour) so that might matter. I personally developed a very strong dislike to the E3 (too many pictures came out crooked) but I really did like the 12-60.



Oh well those are some of the trade offs. I personally would probably skip both (more for system issues than camera issues) but the truth is that either one could serve you well for 5+ years (though I think the 16-50 pentax lens might be the weakest point).

[/quote]



The Pentax system is rather unique if you value small form factor system combined with high IQ.

For example, a great combo would be: K5 + DA15 f/4 + DA35 f/2.8 + DA 70 f/2.4. This covers wide-angle (landscapes), normal/macro and portrait. The compactness of the limited lenses, their build quality, as well as their IQ, is simply awesome and a joy to use.



In the zooms department however, it's not as great, especially compared to the Oly 12-60 which is clearly the best zoom in this range among all brands.

This being said, a nice zoom combo with good IQ (especially the tele) and constant aperture would be: K5 + DA 17-70 f/4 + DA* 60-250 f/4. You can also add the excellent DA 12-24 f/4 and you have the whole range covered from 12mm to 250mm.

[netrex]

The 60-250mm is a fantastic lens. Not as fast AF as the Canon and Nikons maybe, certainly not Olympus (aren't they faster?). But the image quality is great, and the lens feels very good to use. The only lens I would go for instead is the 50-135mm f/2.8. The same things as with the 60-250mm, only brighter/faster. But it doesn't have the reach.



The Sigma 8-16mm is a great lens for the K-5. I have one, and it works great. Extremely wide, I also had the 10-20mm before, but sold it due to financial issues, but also a good lens, but doesn't draw bright light sources beautifully at all, actually very badly IMO (http://netrex.deviantart.com/art/Breakin...w-77529148). I don't have any good examples for the 8-16mm yet, it's been a dry spell for me, photography wise <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[netrex]

I've had two copies of the 16-50mm (had to sell the first one due to financial issues, nothing else. Which is why I bought a new one recently). Both are great.



I've mostly used the lens at f/5.6 to f/11 though, for landscape, and the sharpness is amazing. Haven't used it properly on the K-5 yet, which has 60% more pixels compared to the K10D (which is the camera I used with my first copy of the 16-50mm), but the amount of sharpness on the K10D makes me believe it will work very well on the K-5 as well.



The colors and the way it draws bright light sources is top notch, which is the main reason I bought it again:

• http://netrex.deviantart.com/art/Shadowcaster-115898799
  
  
• http://netrex.deviantart.com/art/Statoil-at-Night-111721673
  
  
• http://netrex.deviantart.com/art/Shell-at-Night-111720351
  
  
• http://netrex.deviantart.com/art/City-by-Night-104725259
  
  
• http://netrex.deviantart.com/art/Under-Construction-104726036
  
  

Sharpness is OK, but the way a lens draws the bright light sources is much more important for me, there's darkness here most of the winter, so it's good if street lights look nice <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='Alexander ' timestamp='1291736821' post='4840']

The 60-250mm is a fantastic lens. Not as fast AF as the Canon and Nikons maybe, certainly not Olympus (aren't they faster?). But the image quality is great, and the lens feels very good to use. The only lens I would go for instead is the 50-135mm f/2.8. The same things as with the 60-250mm, only brighter/faster. But it doesn't have the reach.



The Sigma 8-16mm is a great lens for the K-5. I have one, and it works great. Extremely wide, I also had the 10-20mm before, but sold it due to financial issues, but also a good lens, but doesn't draw bright light sources beautifully at all, actually very badly IMO (http://netrex.deviantart.com/art/Breakin...w-77529148). I don't have any good examples for the 8-16mm yet, it's been a dry spell for me, photography wise <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[/quote]

While the Pentax 60-250mm f4 is a good lens, it is not very fast in AF and has that Sudden Death Motor too... So if one wants a lens like that, I would suggest to rather look at for instance a combination of Canon EOS 60D and EF 70-200mm f4 L IS USM. Faster AF, lighter and even a bit cheaper. The Sigma 8-16mm is great on any APS-C camera.

[netrex]

I think the softness is a bit exaggerated. The lenses I have that were sharp on the K10D and K-x are still sharp on the K-5. I've mostly used my old SMC Pentax-K 135mm 1:2.5 ([url="http://www.opticallimits.com/pentax/143-pentax-smc-k-135mm-f25-review--lab-test-report"]the Photozone test of the lens[/url]), and it's still sharp at f/2.5 and f/5.6 (the two apertures I've used it on so far on the K-5), though it was ISO 5000 and 8000, but still. And the images were exceptionally clean. And after I used Neat Image they were as usable as any lower ISO. But most of the images were bright, so that's probably the reason why the were so very clean at such high ISO values.



The camera is very good in use. Fast, good solutions to getting to things in a fast way without having to go through the menu every time. It's sturdy, strong, weather resistant and so are the DA* lenses. And it's not very big, but the grip is great (though short, but the vertical grip with remedy that). I can only recommend it. I have no idea how the Olympus is though.