Originally posted by judderman62 so what is the consensus on here then as regards the K5 - are it's images as good as the best the K200 can deliver ? do they have the same "pop" - it's the thing that struck me most about the K200 - the images are so vibrant and ..well everything I said in my above post (but without the typos)
In one respect that's hard to answer - since you don't explain how your K200 is set up. BUT - I have both, still use both - lenses with different zoom ranges mounted. The K5 images (I'm talking JPEGs) are better in all respects especially in low light, faster AF, cropability, dynamic range, etc etc - all the things you'd expect from a more advanced, more megapixeled sensor. But I will say it takes more playing around with the settings to achieve that "Pop" I think you're looking for. The K200's default settings lean towards that "pop" which many users coming from the P&S world are used to.. The K5's defaults tend towards a more neutral image, which even with JPEGs , are easier to tweak in post processing to get what you want (which may not always be "pop") I would add that I still really like my K200 but I would make this comparison.
Consider how some audio speakers have nice bright highs and a solid base but aren't so strong in the mid ranges - that's kind of like the K200's 'Pop". Other audio speakers take a balanced approach throughout the tonal range without emphasis on any one portion - that's like the K5's default. Now you can tweak settings on the K5 like you can tweak the amp or equalizer on your stereo and get the results you want. But the K5, like a balanced speaker is far more flexible, more nuanced, and in the long run superior. BUT that's JMHO and YMMV