Originally posted by ManWithCamera Also, people should keep in mind that the D700 still beats the K-5 in terms of high-ISO performance (signal to noise ratio) up to ISO 6400. The K-5 wins in dynamic range and total score, but full frame still has the advantage in terms of noise (though, the gap is narrowing, when the latest DX is compared to two-year-old FX technology).
I agree, but... in my own research(its been a long week), I've found that the D700 holds no visible advantage over the K-5 anywhere under ISO5000. At which point, the K-5 begins applying(what we could call) heavy handed NR at the expense of detail.
Having said that, the D700 has somewhat of an advantage at or around ISO6400 at which point the K-5 seems to be at it's worst. And though I've managed to bi-pass NR, though close! ... it still doesn't seem to be enough to compensate for the D700's higher quality grain /detail retention.
What's even more interesting, is that passed this point, its a who it really does come down to a what is shittier affair.
Which could be summarized by what ones prefers under the terms of detail losses.
Don't know how relevant to the cause this really is. But I thought it was interesting nonetheless.
However, I will go as far as saying that the K-5 is not only very good but even phenomenal at ISO3200. And if you're adventurous... you can bi-pass low level NR and shoot so close to nominal(in terms of IQ) that it would make your head spin. Okay... maybe not if you've handled a D700(that's would be expected), but from an APS-C perspective... absolutely stunning!
Okay I'm done.