Saw this thread on dpreview: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52547225
The guy has 3 year's experience with the K-5. His verdict is "There is more visible noise at high ISO starting ISO 640. K-5 shots looked cleaner. But, man, cropping ability and details of K-3 on top of faster and more reliable AF, including now working well enough AF.C, are simply amazing. Also metering is much more accurate, handling highlights very well." Some good images of Birds In Flight (BIF) as examples. I believe that this illustrates why Pentax could very easily come out with a Full Frame DSLR that has the SAME MP as the K-3 and it would still be a winner: Larger sensor sites would mean less noise (and probably better high ISO performance) and so the FF image quality would top the K-3 (for presumably more money). However, if Pentax takes what they learned from making the K-3 (in terms of AF performance, exposure system, high frame rate, and switchable AA) and it would be a serious Home Run. This is the main reason that I think that K-5 and K-5ii owners could pretty easily wait for the FF in 2014, rather than hopping on the K-3 now. Think of it as putting $1299 towards your eventual full frame body. -- I don't have a problem with idiots. I have a problem with the fact that they have an internet connection. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
