Originally posted by ogl I think it's some kind of antiK-5 campaign if somebody say about soft pictures of K-5.
I've converted RAW from K-5 + FA77 and I can say that K-5 has weaker AA filter than K-7 and offers better details and better sharpness.
The crops are very sharp and close to K10/K200D photos in terms of per-pixel sharpness.
I will plan to buy K-5 and kill this new myth.
As for me the worst APS-C pisture is from canon 7D in terms of sharpness.
All first pictures from prime + K-5 in this forum were very sharp...But somebody decided to create bad story about soft K-5....
Well put, Ogl
That's what I could see from experience.
When I bought my K-7 one year ago, I missed the "sharpness" (we are talking about 100% pixel-peeping here) of the K200d. I also missed the colors, but it's not the topic here. Well, I told myself that 14.6Mp are more demanding than 10.2... Not that I was unhappy, the K-7 was a huge step forward
Now with the K-5, I'm very glad to experience the same feeling when I look at the shots I take, crispness (and colors). Of course it's even more demanding as regards to lens quality. But I also thought the AA filter is weaker than the one on the K-7.
I absolutely don't understand that measurebation turning into urban legend so that the K-5 has a kind of "soft" rendering. It might be depending on the JPEG settings, I don't care I just shoot RAW. What I don't understand is that you see plenty of people just getting hysteric on comparing 400% tests images from tests sites when one can find real sharp real world images.
Spending hours to compare quarters of pixels on studio targets when there are so many beautiful things to see and to shoot at
Cheers