Login at opticallimits.com

03-22-2011, 09:41 PM

[quote name='AlexanderÂ ' timestamp='1300826005' post='7029']

What do you find strange about that?

[/quote]

Well one is a FF and the other is crop,, the other is all these big time wedding pros they use the 5D II for a reason and I don't see any of them using Pentax.

03-22-2011, 09:45 PM

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1300826062' post='7030']

On par in what respect? Not field of view, not DOF range... Which is what makes full frame stand out over APS-C.

[/quote]He didn't say anything about that,, the only thing he said was Noise performance was close and the DR is way better and he liked the build quality better,, now I told SRS Mycrosystems in UK to put a K-5 aside for me but I don't know I am invested in Canon lenses and am still thinking about it but maybe I should wait to see what canon comes out with first.

03-22-2011, 10:58 PM

Oh, OK. I thought you meant it was weird that the K-5 was on par with the 5D Mark II.

03-23-2011, 03:26 AM

5D Mark II still has lower noise at higher ISOs than D7000 and K-5.

03-23-2011, 01:21 PM

Are you sure about that? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' Tongue

' />

~~Brightcolours~~ · 03-23-2011, 02:18 PM

[quote name='AlexanderÂ ' timestamp='1300886465' post='7044']

Are you sure about that? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' Tongue

' />

[/quote]

I am.. Not sure why it is though. At base-ISO the K5 has very low shadow noise (which means it does well in DR-measurements), but at higher ISO settings, that advantage disappears somehow. If you compare for instance a Canon 60D with a D7000 or K5 at higher ISO settings, the Canon is comparable yet retains more detail.

I guess the amplification stage is not as clean?

04-20-2011, 01:30 PM

Quote:[...] DA 35/2.4 [...] cannot be (at least the lens resolution) compared with the test results of previously tested lenses. To make the test results better comparable, I would strongly suggest (if it is possible) to re-test at least the lens resolution of this lens with the same camera as it was used for the previous tests. [...]

I would also be highly interested in a resolution test of the 35/2.4 with a K10D. It could not only indicate the transferability of the tests from the K10D to the K-5 but also answer the question whether there is a (significant) difference in picture quality between the 35/2 and the 35/2.4 (the optical formula indicates only cut boundaries of glass elements).

Without further comment, the proposed (oversimplified?) comparison of 35/[email protected] and 35/[email protected]*2700/2350 (scaling by maximal resolution) is attached.

04-20-2011, 02:09 PM

Well received the K5 and DA* 16-50 2.8 and sent it back for a refund sorry but I didn't like it, and all that BS you here in pentax forums on how it is on par with FF is nonsense, my 5D II does circles around it in IQ,, even my 7D had better detailed images than the K5.

**Klaus** · 04-20-2011, 02:52 PM

[quote name='Christos' timestamp='1303308552' post='7784']

Well received the K5 and DA* 16-50 2.8 and sent it back for a refund sorry but I didn't like it, and all that BS you here in pentax forums on how it is on par with FF is nonsense, my 5D II does circles around it in IQ,, even my 7D had better detailed images than the K5.

[/quote]

Well, I mentioned it more than once that the K5 has a strong AA filter ...

04-20-2011, 05:21 PM

[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1303311164' post='7785']

Well, I mentioned it more than once that the K5 has a strong AA filter ...

[/quote]

Klaus I quite don't understand what the AA filter does?