Originally posted by normhead I considered the difference between a D800 and K-5 to be stunning, maybe you could quantify stunning on that scale. Like a If a K-5 II to a D800 is 100% stunning, how stunning is a K-5II to a K-5 IIs or even say to a D600? I need to define stunning.
I did look at the pictures posted as well as the ones at Imaging Resource... I'm still sitting at "better but false colour is holding me back". Which again returns to the unanswered question, how much of a role does sharpness play in how much we enjoy a good photograph? What is the value of an 8% increase in sharpness?
This line of thought is being encouraged for my preference for some of my 21 ltd images ahead of my 18-135 images taken in the same location, even though, the 18-135 is technically sharper.
Strangely perhaps, I somewhat agree with this. What I mean is, for me it isn't about overall resolution, but about the sharpness of what is resolved. I will probably order a D800 (not the E) in the next couple of days, but I still long for a K-5IIs. The D800(e) has loads more resolution, but it doesn't come out as sharp (well defined, if that helps some) as the IIs. After years of scanning 35mm and MF film, it's just so difficult to get the files as sharp as they should be.
And what is worse: How do you get the sharpness problem corrected??? I mean
really corrected??? This is a HUGE deal for me. When something isn't as sharp as it seems it is supposed to be, it's like black magic to try to get it right. Did I go far enough? Did I go too far? I just hate it. With the files that the 5IIs seems to deliver (never used one), and the ones I've downloaded and tested, it is a breeze to get it properly sharp. With false color or miore, it's not a concern at all of how far or too far? It's easy to see when it's there, and it's easy to see when it's gone, i.e., fixed.
Really fixed. Knowing I can "really" fix false color and moire poses a much, much, much more manageable issue than dealing with soft files that need voodoo magic sharpening.