Originally posted by Abstract Let me try to explain, Lets say noise is not an issue for me, neither is auto-focus and fps(5 is enough imo) is there much advantage to the K-5? I mean I remember when the K-7 hit and the K20D went down to 500 bucks at many sites(Bestbuy,walmart,etc...) so if that happens again, well it seems like a giant deal.
Now is the Image quality suppose to be better on the K-5 ignoring noise all together, I am talking about color, depth of field, etc...
(Sorry if this topic was done before I looked but if it exists, point me there.)
I hope I made this clear...and yeah I know the K-5 is not out but from what I hear is that it uses the same sensor as the Nikon 7000(?) so I thought this would be ok to ask.
So, what you are asking is if none of the improvements that the K5 brings to the table matters to you is the k5 a better camera?
I'm rather surprised that someone would ask this question.
Here's an extreme example of what you are asking:
If 6mp and 5 pictures a minute is all a person needs, is the K5 an improvement over the *istD?
The answer is no, it isn't.
Here's another: If a person only uses their car as a grocery hauler, is a Ford F350 Super Duty better than a Ford Escort?
No, it isn't.
You need to use the extra capabilities to gain the advantage of them.