excepting resolution is a big exception... -- J.C. O'Connell (mailto:[email protected]) Join the CD PLAYER & DISC Discussions : http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cdplayers/ http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/cdsound/
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of paul stenquist Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 1:05 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Sony A850 vs Pentax K-7 or Boris examines lots of photos Good post. I suspect that the K-5 can outperform the A850 in all but pixel count. But that's just a guess based on sensor tests and a wedding photographer friend's comments regarding his A850. Paul On Jan 11, 2011, at 7:07 AM, Boris Liberman wrote: > Hi! > > As I wrote earlier, my friends from DC (well, actually it is MD, but I > like to think of this as DC) came for a visit and left. Among other > things I did back up photos for my friend and I was given an > opportunity to keep them for my examination. He has Sony A850 and an > assortment of lenses, notably the famous Minolta Beer Can, Tamron > 17-35/2.8-4.0 and Tamron 90/2.8 macro. > > I have looked and processed and examined and pixel peeped few dozen > images and compared some of them side by side given that we were > shooting at the same time on the same location. > > Few ideas crossed my mind: > > 1. Under bright day light Sony wins hands down. The exposure latitude > and color fidelity are ahead of those of K-7. The dynamic range > difference is evident once you start to play with curves and look into > shadow-to-light transitions. > > 2. Under low light both cameras struggle, though my friend does not > shoot above ISO 1600, while I shoot at ISO 3200. Given pixel count > advantage, I think it might be possible to downsize Sony images to > take care of some of the noise. > > So, on the surface it looks like naturally one might want to upgrade > to either full frame or another Pentax camera with better sensor. > > On the other hand, I had to look at 1:1 or even 3:1 (300% > magnification) and really side by side to see those differences. Of > course playing with exposure slider makes different impression > immediately, but beside that I really don't think that Pentax is so > much behind. Let's say that the difference is 10-15% although I do > admit and do realize that these percentage points are meaningless. > What I am trying to say is that the difference is relatively small. > > I have some reservations about the aforementioned lenses' performance > in some of the situations, but that's a different matter. > > Thankfully, I don't feel like I should or even must update from K-7 to > K-5 or to Canon 5DMk2 or whatever. I kind of used to feel that way > having seen Paul's comparison shots from his basement. > > I also think that to say that camera A offers revolutionary > improvements in IQ dept over camera B (*) would be a serious > overstatement or simply a market speak. > > Well, at least I had my chance to vent. > > Boris > > (*) As long as both A and B are of similar general class. It stands to > reason that 16x24 and 24x36 cameras are closer than it might have > seemed initially. > > -- > 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. -- 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. -- 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.
