On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 6:21 PM, P N Stenquist <pnstenqu...@comcast.net> wrote: > > On Nov 5, 2010, at 6:08 PM, Rob Studdert wrote: > >> On 6 November 2010 09:05, P N Stenquist <pnstenqu...@comcast.net> wrote: >> >>> It's assumptions based on hardware, and it's obviously not the result of >>> testing. >> >> I guess we'll just have to watch how many top end cinematographers >> embrace the K5 like they have the Canons. > > I doubt any will, and I would guess that the Canon is better. I was merely > pointing out that drawing conclusions without comparing any actual results > is assumptive. > Paul
And here your missing the point. I was explaining the differences which justified the price difference between the 7D and the K-5 in response to Thibouille. Those are hardware and implementation differences, not assumptions (aside from AF performance, which is based on extensive experience with a multitude of systems and cameras, including the 7D). As to actual capability, I'd personally take the K-5 any day as I expect it will have significantly superior image quality than the 7D (which is a superb camera hobbled by a mediocre at best sensor and processing chain). -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
