Originally posted by dadipentak I have a pair of K20Ds and I bought a used K-7. I could see that the design was an improvement (except that I missed the SR switch and found the media card door a step backward) but that didn't matter much to me--I had gotten used to the K20D feel. I was disappointed that there was no appreciable difference in performance. The performance of the K-5, OTOH, is significantly improved in ways that are important to my shooting style and needs. It hasn't made me a better photographer but it has improved my photographs. I gave the K-7 to my son for Christmas and just bought my second K-5.
Here you have a valid argument, and to that I will say that point is well taken. What certain characteristics of the camera can mean to a certain shooting style I perfectly understand. Not that you are obligated, but I would have liked to known what the style and needs were, so that I can for one consider it and two learn from it. For example, if you said that you do macro, I can kind of see why one would prefer K-5 over 7. A bit more punchy, or with a pop. Or, Fashion shoot, where models get professionally done make-up and wear vibrant clothing, K5 may be much more suited for that than K-7, although I think K-7 can hold its own here because of artificial lighting. People here talk about wedding a lot here. Sure, better high ISO will help there, but probably more during receptions. But if a photographer is to shoot more "official" style of portraiture with controlled lightings, I am sure that while K-5 is capable, what I do say is that if you do that for a living you ought to be shooting medium format, or at least seriously consider it before buying another K-5 for example. No, it does not have to be digital, films are fine. I am not saying that you are any of the above, but these are thoughts that I put into when critically looking at a camera, even if it is something like 645D.
Do you have a printer? The reason I mention is that the prints I have made of K-5 outputs some were a bit more harsh on glossy papers for my taste. This also reminded me of K20D. Especially I noticed that on K-5/FA31 combination. The sharpness and clarity was a bit over the top. This is of course ok, but these characteristics are very difficult to tone down with pp without losing details. At least for me it is. I don't think that this has to do with my unfamiliarity of K-5 files in particular.
Last edited by Fontan; 03-24-2011 at 03:16 PM.