Originally posted by frank I kinda agree with what Doc said here. I do post processing, but mostly is to adjust white balance, exposure, level and sometimes colors. Never really do (well, still don't know how this thing works) sharpening on full sized photos. I only sharpen the photos after resize when needed, and with K5IIs I don't need to do as much sharpening as with K5 after resize.
The sharpness improvement with K5IIs is pretty obvious to me, and this is also verified in the sample photos from the 1st post. To say it's not worth the $100 extra is just too 'personal' opinion, a review like this should avoid giving clear conclusion especially considering the price difference isn't huge. It's up to the readers to decide.
To me (and many others) it's well worth the $100 extra, and there is no reason to buy the K5II at all IMO since I can buy the K5IIs for just $100 more.
Hi Frank,
Let me start off by saying that you're one of the forum members that I respect most, and I really appreciate you putting your opinion out there on this one.
However, I have to counter-argue that it's certainly not out of bounds for a publication to state an opinion in a feature article (or even a review, which this article is not). We clearly state that it's an opinion ("We think not"), rather than a fact, and we give our arguments as to why. Everyone (as this thread clearly shows
) is welcome to disagree, and maintain their own opinions. Hopefully the images in the article speak for themselves, and everyone can draw his or her own conclusions.
(It is true, though, that when it comes to money, decisions and opinions do get very personal.)