Originally posted by Gimbal It's not easy to understand the figures, I mean some of the samples with a low mean value looks much worse then samples with a higher value.
Anyhow, does this mean that if I where to shoot some deep space object like the Andromeda galaxy with a 200mm lens, (which means cropping to 100%) that I would be better off using the K5 than the K1?
The number suggests this, and if so it's kind of disappointing, I where expecting at least the same performance on a pixel level.
It's worth a test. The K-5 and K-1 have almost identical pixel density and I don't think you'll be able to notice a difference. On the other hand, the K-1 is a bigger sensor and
might heat up more during long exposures.
A real world test, done on the same night so the air temperature and sky conditions are the same for both cameras, is a good idea.
Or just use the K-1, and frame the 200mm shot to show the galaxy at one side of the frame and something else at the other side of the frame; use the bigger sensor instead of cropping. Software like Stellarium can be used to plan your composition.