Quote: Canon Eos 5d mkII and Sigma 12-24, Tamron 28.75 f2,8 and Canon 100-400 is not far from that with big improvment in IQ and DOF. I bought Eos5dmkII last year over Pentax just because that. I use 28mm, 35mm, 50mm and 100mm with Canon and they are dirty cheap.
We are discussing 2 k here.
Canon Eos 5d mkII not available to me...but cheap on-line price $1699.
Canon 100-400 f 4.5 - 5.6 $1699 - sorry but the DA* 60-250 if constant F4. To get to Canon equivalent (400 @ F4 we have to go to a EF 400 F4 $6,859) Don't even try and substitute an f 5.6 lens for an F4 lens and have any kind of credibility. The strength o APS-c is cheaper glass in the long end. Cheating on this part totally skews the results.
Mark II Best price $1699.
Sigma 12-24 - $899
Tamron 28-75 $599
EF 400 F4 $6,859
Approximately $10k
My system (equivalent 4k)
Rating on Imaging Resource Mrk II rating on Imaging Resource
Our laboratory resolution chart revealed sharp, distinct line patterns down to about 2,200 lines per picture height horizontally, and about 2,000 lines in the vertical direction. Total extinction didn't occur until past 4,000(!) lines, but lines began to merge at about 2,600 lines horizontally and vertically (results from 2X target above are multiplied by 2)
Based on the above there is a very small advantage to the, but hardly significant. I doubt anyone could tell the difference between the two.
K-5 rating on Imaging Resource
We were able to extract more resolution (to about 2,100 lines) with RAW files processed through Adobe Camera RAW, with complete extinction extended to around 3,200 lines.
All the real evidence points to the fact that if you bought your 5D MkII for anything other than shooting fast moving objects, you got punked. The only way your system compares is if you don't match my DA* 60-250 with an equivalent lens. Sing - to the tune of "Oh yes the woman is, smarter" ," oh yes the Pentax looks, sharper"