Originally posted by Nicolas06 The problem here is to think the K70 would achieve something much better is quite optimistic...
Even if the K70 allowed virtually no noise, the subject is still soft, the light is still not so interesting and the photo lack punch. In fact the noise is the least visible issue on this shot.
You can go on explain how this shot would have a bit less noise on K70, this isn't the real issue.
Those are your issues.
I already stipulated that the picture was taken in serious shade, so I don't expect the lighting to be interesting.
I don't claim to be an artist.
I already said this was with a thirty-year-old lens mounted on a doubler, so I would expect softness, and noise always accentuates softness and complicates sharpening and other adjustments in PP.
I'm not taking pictures for anyone else; I'm not trying to package "punch".
These issues of yours are all "straw men"; none of these issues is germane to this discussion, which is about what the K-70 can provide.
If I had posted a sharper image with more "interesting" lighting, you would have complained about the noise.
All I am saying is that I look forward to getting a K-70 {or a derivative of it} for the reason that it will enable me to take better pictures under poor lighting conditions, allowing me to use higher ISO settings {which will then enable higher shutter speeds and smaller apertures - both of which might contribute to improved sharpness} even times when you aren't excited by the light, and because it will eliminate the need for those constant f/2.8 lenses that you seem to focus your attention on; I am glad for a reasonably-priced system {K-70 + 55-300mm PLM} for those many relatives who have been put off by the cost and handling of a constant f/2.8 system.
You don't have to buy one.