04-22-2011, 03:57 AM
As someone who has used both cameras extensively I found the k-5 to offer more usable high-iso shots due to lack of banding. The amount of vertical and horizontal banding in the 5d mark II at high sensitivities (ISO 6400+) in both stills and video is frankly ridiculous considering the price of the camera and how easily it may have been avoided by the manufacturer. The banding is also painfully present at low-iso images limiting the practical DR of the camera.
The lack of seemingly standard basic features like customizable auto-ISO, quick image magnification and zoomed multi-shot comparison (amongst others) was also disappointing on the 5d. Frankly the main advantage on the 5d is the size of its sensor and the different rendering it offers compared to APS-C. Aside from that, the lack of features and poor attention to quality in certain areas makes a camera not worthy of its premium price.
[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]
The lack of seemingly standard basic features like customizable auto-ISO, quick image magnification and zoomed multi-shot comparison (amongst others) was also disappointing on the 5d. Frankly the main advantage on the 5d is the size of its sensor and the different rendering it offers compared to APS-C. Aside from that, the lack of features and poor attention to quality in certain areas makes a camera not worthy of its premium price.
[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]