The K-5 images are very sharp. I've found that they require much less sharpening in conversion than did those of k10, k20 or k7.
Of course you'll find numerous "sky is falling" conversations about any new camera on the lunatic fringe forums. A handful of jpegs can't prove or disprove anything. Too many variables. Ignore the opinions of others – including me – and take pictures. That's always the best way to go. Paul On Nov 24, 2010, at 10:54 AM, Jaume Lahuerta wrote: > ----- Mensaje original ---- > >> De: Miserere <miser...@gmail.com> > >> I convinced B&H to lend me a K-5 for review and it should arrive >> tomorrow (Monday). I won't have it as long as other cams I've tested >> (it's going back on Dec 15th) so I'm trying to streamline this review >> as much as possible and keep out any superfluous fluff. >> >> If any of you guys have any particular requests for things you'd like >> me to check that you think *must* be included in a self-respecting >> review, I'd love to hear from you. > > I am reading some 'the sky is falling' comments about the quality of the K-5 > jpg-engine and a supposed too strong AA filter (whatever it means). > So if you can comment on your impression about the quality of the in-camera > jpgs > and the ability to produce sharp images it will be greatly welcome. > > Regards, > Jaume > > > > > > -- > 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. -- 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.
