[rawr]

I'm 20. Say I photographs things till I am 60. That's 40 years.

It's an admirable goal and a very prudent approach to buying gear. But not many manufacturers - even Pentax or Leica - have a track record of coherently developing all their hardware as part of a multi-decade 'system', whether it means lens mounts, flash systems etc. And sometimes mergers and acquisitions and bankruptcies and new technologies etc may intervene over the years to break up systems and standards too. So a more minimal approach - eg a 3 or 4 quality lens system - saves you money, gives you most of what you would realistically need and can carry around on a shoot, and keeps your options open for future technologies. IMHO.

[curiouspeter]

Just buy what makes you happy.

[SpartanWarrior]

The actual write-up "reivew" that accompanied the scores is quite strong in its complements as well (in case anybody missed it):

DxOMark - DxOMark review for the Pentax K5

Yes quite strong but also the D700 and 5D II are a stop better at high ISO noise, so I don't know where some of you say it matches it.

[str8talk83]

Interesting indeed. I would love to have an APS-C camera with this kind of dynamic range. Still will render images differently due to depth of field differences of the FF sensor (yes, I know that the depth of field isn't actually different...) and probably doesn't quite deliver the detail you get from full-frame. Still quite an accomplishment for sure. Too bad that Pentax doesn't have something to compete with my 17-55 or 400L or I might consider making a switch.

[gazonk]

Yes quite strong but also the D700 and 5D II are a stop better at high ISO noise, so I don't know where some of you say it matches it.

Regarding the 5D MkII: The high iso score is not a full stop higher, and besides at ISO 3200 they're almost identical, and at the highest ISOs, the K-5 is better.

[SpartanWarrior]

Regarding the 5D MkII: The high iso score is not a full stop higher, and besides at ISO 3200 they're almost identical, and at the highest ISOs, the K-5 is better.

Sorry your wrong, prove it though.

[falconeye]

Regarding the 5D MkII: The high iso score is not a full stop higher, and besides at ISO 3200 they're almost identical, and at the highest ISOs, the K-5 is better.

Respect the source and at least subtract 1.5 dB SNR from K-5 figures above ISO 1600.

[SpartanWarrior]

Here is what DxOMark said
As good as it is, the K5 sensor isn’t still quite up to its solid full-frame competitors, being roughly one stop behind a D700 or a 5D MkII.

[Class A]

Fantastic results for the K-5. Maybe, just maybe, DPReview will not put the "Highly" in "Highly Recommend" into parentheses this time.

Scored great, but at high ISO is the 5D II like about half stop better?

The 5D is almost 2/3 stops better in the "Low-Light ISO" but it really should be almost 1.3 stops better if the sensor had the same performance. Why? Falk has touched upon this already but I hope I can make it a bit clearer:

The performance of FF and APS-C cameras is measured using the same f-ratio (say, f/2.8). That's fine if one assumes one wants to use the very same lens on both cameras wide open. However, in terms of comparing on the basis of equivalent images, the FF should be measured at ~f/4.3, since one needs to stop down a lens on an FF camera by "crop factor"-times more in order to achieve the same DOF.

In other words, the FF sensors receive an "Low-Light ISO" advantage, not because they are better (more sensitive, bigger) but because the measurements across sensor sizes are not based on equivalent images (or equivalent lenses).

If the 5DII sensor technology were as good as that of the K-5's sensor then the 5DII should have a "Low-Light ISO" of ISO 2720 (but it only has ISO 1815). That just shows the development in sensor technology. No doubt, the sensors in the FF cameras will catch up in future models.

I personally find the 1.3 stop advantage given to FF sensors misleading because one really exploits the light advantage of an FF lens compared to an APS-C lens, but I understand why it's done that way.

BUT! With my limited knowledge, due to pixel density and general diffraction rules, we are not able to get sharp pictures with aperture smaller than f.8 with K-5, unless Sony made a trick with it's Exmor sensors microlenses. Tell me that I am wrong.

You are wrong.
Your statement is like asking "I moved from a 6MP camera to a 16MP camera. Will I still be able to make sharp pictures because the 16MP outresolve my cheap lenses and my hand-holding technique?". View both 16MP and 6MP images at the same output size and you'll see that if you can see a difference then there will be more detail in the 16MP images.

If sensor resolution goes up it only means you can see diffraction limitation earlier than you were able to previously. The diffraction limitation of the lens exists independently of the sensor. It is like the fact that a higher resolution sensor will show you the limitations of your lenses better than a low-resolution one at a 100% view. It doesn't mean that your images will be less sharp.

Hope that helps.

[yeatzee]

Oh no! My K-7 suddenly sucks after reading those numbers

All of those images that I thought were great, really are nothing special since they were taken with a camera whose DXO rating is 61! This is such a revelation

[gazonk]

Respect the source and at least subtract 1.5 dB SNR from K-5 figures above ISO 1600.

Because of the low-level NR, you mean?

[deadwolfbones]

Oh no! My K-7 suddenly sucks after reading those numbers

All of those images that I thought were great, really are nothing special since they were taken with a camera whose DXO rating is 61! This is such a revelation

The general tone of the thread has been simply to marvel at the capability of this sensor, I think... not to run down the sensors used in previous cameras.

[gazonk]

Sorry your wrong, prove it though.

Huh? Just look at the DxO graphs. But as Falk pointed out it doesn't quite look that way if you compensate for the low level NR.

[str8talk83]

The general tone of the thread has been simply to marvel at the capability of this sensor, I think... not to run down the sensors used in previous cameras.

I agree. There is more to photography than camera sensors (and camera bodies for that matter...), but I certainly won't complain as improvements are made.

[yeatzee]

The general tone of the thread has been simply to marvel at the capability of this sensor, I think... not to run down the sensors used in previous cameras.

I agree. There is more to photography than camera sensors (and camera bodies for that matter...), but I certainly won't complain as improvements are made.

Im just making a point that DXO ratings are not the whole picture....