[rparmar]

Then the lens is simply acceptably 'sharp' at certain apertures and focal length combinations, where the threshold of acceptable sharpness is defined (eg as lenstip do) at 30 lpm. 'Micro-contrast' seems just sales mumbo-jumbo.

I just pointed out exactly how micro-contrast can be technically measured. How is that sales talk?

"Sharpness" is not an accurate way to speak of this measure. Or else how can one distinguish the 30 l/mm curve from the 5 l/mm? They do not measure the same thing.

[outsider]

I guess I don't see much difference, at least at web sizes, but the important thing is to use equipment that makes you happy.

It's always interesting to see debate in the forums. You're right about using what makes you happy. All I know is that the k-5 raw files converted, as they are, appear less "vibrant" than the k-x. I'm no photography whiz and much of the technical talk here often goes over my head, but at the end of the day, if I'm not happy with what I see on the moniter, I need to make changes. From the research i've done, it seems that the aspc sensor may have a megapixel limit for how well it performs in certain areas, at least as the converted raw file is viewed. I may be wrong and if I am, I have no problem accepting it. At the end of the day, this k-x takes my breath away with a solid lens.

[RickyFromVegas]

It was too long didn't read it at the beginning, so I just looked at the photos.

In my opinion, the second photo "popped" more than the first one to me.