Originally posted by DogLover Vincent, If quality high-ISO ability were the only factor to consider then perhaps upgrading would indeed be harder to justify. But, as I said above, it's the dynamic range of the K5's sensor that is the kicker. You simply have to shoot with the K5 for a while to realize that your photographic possibilities can be expanded by quite a leap.
I will accept your point -
However my K-x is just streets ahead of any other camera I have used
and I do use the K-x a lot - in very dark environments where in parts it is actually below both the AF and metering limits of the K-x.
Please see this long thread:
Kx in Use (
1 2 3 ...
Last Page)
I shoot humble JPGs (two stars)
and not even at the full 12Mp, but a step down to 10Mp -
so probably any gains or differences would be lost on me.
That obviously does not mean it's not valid for you -
it's just not worth it to me.
Until I see visibly a noticeable improvement at ISO6400 and ISO12800 -
(like the performance level of the Nikon D3S Full-Frame)
I am unlikely to do any upgrading -
unless of course someone is kind enough to get me one for Free
then I'll take the K-5, please!
PS - perhaps you could please post a few pics to show us clearly the increased DR advantage? Thanks.
EDIT to ADD -
DxO clearly show s that the K-5 is the current reigning champ in terms of dynamic range for APS-C sized sensors.
All the Pentax dSLRs
But under actual photographic tests dpReview found this:
which actually seems to show that the Nikon D7000 has better DR than the K-r which is about the same as the K-5?