> From: John Sessoms <jsessoms...@nc.rr.com> > I'm going to try to let this be my last response because it's gotten > really repetitious. > > You make a valid point instead of just endlessly repeating that "it goes > to eleven". If I were "still stuck with a K10D", the K-5 might appeal to > me as an upgrade. > > Although ... > > I was out shooting with the K10D on Halloween, and it ain't that bad.
Practically any camera is capable of rendering a nice looking image. It's all a matter of degrees of difference and shooting conditions. Of course you realize that John, otherwise you wouldn't feel as you do. I have an *ist D. I skipped the K10D and got the K20D instead, then the K7. In retrospect, I wish I would have skipped the K7 and waited for the K5. The K5 simply didn't excite me enough to upgrade from a K7. IMO the K5 was what the K7 should have been and I didn't care to pay Pentax twice. That being said, I've switched to Nikon and Sony because I feel that I'm actually getting significant improvements for the money spent. I see the K20D through the K5 models as only offering incremental improvements. It becomes difficult to justify laying down $1200 - $1300 for new models with only incremental changes. Trying to quantify (impossible I know), if a camera provides a 10% increase in image quality or handling in some aspect over a prior model, why would I think it reasonable to pay 100% of the price time and again? Tom C. -- 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.
