Originally posted by THoog If the sensor is the same as the K-S1, you will have to get used to a little more noise in high ISO shots. It's "luminance" noise instead of false color, so it's easy to clean up, but it's different from the "Sweet 16" sensor. You should also start planning to buy a bigger hard drive...
Good point! I checked the K-S1 review and it is slightly noisier at high ISO and I do take many high ISO shots, but as you said it's not much and easy to clean up. Maybe the K-S2 improves on this, but I'm also willing to live with it. I'm already way ahead of you on the hard drive issue. I have so many photos now (I only shoot RAW) that they all live on an external drive, with Smart Previews in Lightroom.
Originally posted by vagrant10 the ks2 also has a larger viewfinder and a air gapless lcd (less glare). And a Mic input. No AA filter so sharper images though chance of moire.
but... no AA battery capability.
Looks like a great camera really. But the price difference is pretty significant - like almost double.
Yup, more reasons why I'm considering the K-S2, however I was asking about disadvantages of the new camera, not it's many pluses.
Originally posted by The Squirrel Mafia The prices of the current K-50 are dirt cheap. You can get the red one for about $367 to your door from B&H.
That K-S2 camera does look really nice, but I'm going to wait for a long while before I get one. Probably 3 years from now.
The K-50 is dirt cheap, even for a new one, but the K-S2 has a few things that appeals to me, like the articulating screen for macro shots in weird angles. The issue is that I have money now, and I won't have much when I go to grad school next year. It's probably not a bad idea for me to consider a new body relative soon when I can still afford such things.