Originally posted by normhead So, do you have a conclusion...like I would use this camera instead of a K-5 in these circumstances..
1.
2.
3.
?
Well, let me see (and this is assuming I am already set to shoot at 30mm and ISO100):
1. Static scenes and landscapes with lots of detail that I want to keep (branches, buildings, etc.) - it beats the K-5 here.
2. When I want to carry something compact, but have lots of time to shoot things from #1 (the Q is even more compact, and much faster, so it comes along for "people" shots)
3. Bright colours or difficult to capture colours (like the mineral room at the ROM). I'm still amazed at how neutrals can be problematic with the Sigma, yet more "dynamic colors" are so much crisper and authentic compared to the K-5 without much post. Hard to explain fully... but imagine fall colours on a sunny day, or reflections in water.
I've gotten into the habit of carrying the K-5 with a nice prime (usually the 35mm Macro or 15mm Limited or FA77) and I put the Sigma in the bottom of the holster bag... just in case I run into any of those situations where it sings. It's nice to have both!
Last edited by panoguy; 04-09-2013 at 08:29 AM.