Thanks for the test....
I always look at results of tests and try and understand what I'm seeing, so do most other people.
SO while this is a great test for you, it tells you about the gear you own. If you aren't going to calibrate your lenses, it is even more important.
But lets be clear
In tests taken with the same lens the lens taken closest to the subject will appear sharpest and show the most detail.
Evaluation of bokeh can only happen with cameras and subjects the exact same distance from the subject and background.
If you don't want to calibrate a lens, don't buy the lens. an uncalibrated lens can be as bad as a defective lens.
While you satisfied yourself that for the gear you own, you've can draw a few conclusions, I would guard against projecting those conclusions across wide ranges of gear, like saying that if someone else shot the same test with the same brands and models with different cameras they'd get the same results.
My suspicion is, if you didn't have so many cameras, by now you would have learned to take the necessary steps to take good images with your K-1. Yet if instead of a K-1 and a Sony you'd bought 2 K-1s, you might just as easily be telling us one K-1 was better than the other K-1.
SO my advice would be, learn how to configure your K-1 to get the images you want. I've seen razor sharp K-1 images, and several sites have suggested that with pixel shift enabled a K-1 will surpass any other 36x24 sensor camera. I don't know how you can claim to have even evaluated a camera you haven't optimized.
That would be supported by another observation from elsewhere in the forum
Quote: I never noticed a focus problem with my canon, nor my 1st K-1 body other than my sigma 24-70, which I chalked up to a poor rendition of the lens.
However with my second K-1 body, I was noticing none of my lenses were focusing right, so I bought lens align to help me fine tune things. With the alignment my shots are much better.
But, given the fact that you have access to all these bodies. If you get better images with the Sony, use it. It's the best of your cameras in your personal situation. Put the others back on the shelf or sell them. Go with what works for you. Or as long as you can afford it, just keep buying bodies until you get one that works perfectly right off the shelf.
Some times the best camera for a shooter is the one that's easiest to use.
As for your K-1, there are lots of folks, myself included who would buy your "bad" camera at a discount and make it sing. I've seen enough clear razor sharp K-1 images on the net, like Pinholecam's image of the temple where if you pixel peep, you can read the license plates of the tiny little cars in the parking lot. We know what the camera can do, people are wondering why you aren't doing it.
But what parts of what you've posted is relevant to me? All those cameras take nice pictures. I can work with any one of them. So why would I use the most expensive set up? You've repeated which ones you think are sharpest, but I certainly can't tell from what you've posted. Clearly at web size it makes little difference. I suppose you could argue that there will be some form of output ( like maybe a 20x30 print, but i would still like to see visual confirmation of that before I believed it ) where it does make a difference, but no one has any idea exactly where that would click in.
Last edited by normhead; 08-08-2016 at 06:46 AM.