Hi!
On 11/9/2010 4:21 PM, Charles Robinson wrote:
1. Although a year and few months ago K-7 was top of the line and
many on the list praised its image quality saying that at the time
it was the best Pentax produced, it is actually /rubbish/.
You're kidding, right?
No, I am not. I cannot say that working with K-7 raw files was a breeze
or a pleasure. I wrote that before.
I may be overreacting because I saw Paul's comparison and then spent
some time yesterday working with K10D and K-7 images in parallel. In
some aspects K10D's images are easier to work with. In some K-7 is
easier. To me personally the aspect of dynamic range (of which K10D has
no less or may be even more than K-7 at base ISO) is more important than
precision of AWB sub-system.
I recall that I was thinking clearly that if I could, I should have
returned K-7 but in Israel it is virtually impossible. I might have done
so if I lived in United States.
Huh? How can it be that the K5 coming out suddenly makes the K7
junk? That's just ridiculous.
No, it does not make K-7 junk. After all, it is a piece of gear that
works as per its design and specifications. It is just that the sensor
of K7 is really lagging in certain qualities that I happen to value.
In short, I am not happy about K-7. I kind of used it because it had no
real alternative up until the K-5 came out. The difference between K-7
and K-5 as illustrated by Paul and others (in visible image quality,
Charles, not in measurement) is so significant that it leads to me to
totally write off the former from my list, in a manner of speaking.
I hope I clarified things for you somewhat.
Boris
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
