>There are many reasons. At least a couple of them has to do with the >optics in the 645 system. The sensor is not alone. :-) > >For example at Svalbard I brought my K-7 with a DA*300/4 in addition >to the 645 system, and 100% comparisons of shots with the DA*300/4 and >the 645A*300/4 showed me there's more information in the 645D >recording at the pixel level. I believe the sensor design (eg. lack of >anti-aliasing filter) contributes to the perceived sharpness too. >Either way, when I crop out 1000x1000 pixels from a 645D file and a >K-7 file, obtained with equivalent focal lengths, I'm left with more >detail in the 645D shot. And I used to think the DA*300/4 was pretty >good. > >I do not own the K-5. > >Jostein
I wonder. It's a CCD sensor instead of a CMOS. I think that's why I liked the direct jpg quality of my *istDS above the K-x. There's a crispness to it, at least to my eyes. Sincerely, Collin Brendemuehl http://kerygmainstitute.org "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose" -- Jim Elliott -- 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.
