[Guest]

Nonsense, like your post about "doctored" RAW? You made no effort to understand how and to which extend the RAW is "doctored", and you're completely ignoring no NR was detected below ISO3200. If you really want to pointing out how flawed the DXOMark is, then point out to it's own shortcomings (e.g. completely ignoring image definition), don't blame the camera(s). This way, you're just trying to reject their findings without providing any argument - at least, that's how it looks.



Defensive reactions, like yours? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' /> I understand your skepticism; but you should also accept the K-5 might be that good.



Yes, I really mean that. You're mistakenly presuming I'm talking about carelessly using the full 14.1EV for every picture, but of course this isn't the case. I wouldn't want to get "contrastless bland images". I'm not a big fan of HDR, either <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

But let me tell you, being able to underexpose an image by 9.5 stops (@ISO80) and recover it via software, is certainly impressive. And a definite proof they don't use NR at such low sensitivities.