On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Larry Colen <l...@red4est.com> wrote:
> I don't remember what you're shooting with now. I've had a k-7 for two years now. And while I've been pretty happy with it, t's the the low light/hi ISO/better DR performance that's got me longing for the k-5... Oh! And improved AF... > > Last January, I shot with a K-r for a week or so. It has addressed many of > the usability issues of the K-x, and slightly improved performance. It might > be the best price/performance bargain on the market. A few months ago, I > picked up my K-5, after 27,000 frames I'm still as happy as the day I got it. > When I got the K-x the low light and high ISO performance blew me out of the > water. The performance of the K-5 makes the K-x performance seem > disappointing. A couple months ago I was looking at photos I'd taken at the > same event using both cameras and noticed how noisy the K-x photos seemed in > comparison, and when the K-x came out it basically blew everything that came > before out of the water. I've done informal low-light side by sides of the > K-5 with other cameras. At high ISO it makes the Cannon D5mkII look like a > K20. Compared to a D700 at ISO3200, in relatively bright light the D700 was > a little better, in really low light, the K-5 was noticeably better. > Comparing with a D7000, which should be very close, in really low light, I > got much better shots with my K-5 than I was able to with the Nikon. I > suspect that a lot of that has to do with in-body stabilization at f/1.8. Yes, everything I've read compares the k-5 fairly favorably to the 5dmkII, and d700... not on all counts, but enough to really make doubt changing systems would be worth it. I wouldn't change to a different aps-c system at this point. -- 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.
