On Nov 8, 2010, at 6:57 AM, Boris Liberman wrote: > On 11/8/2010 1:52 PM, paul stenquist wrote: >> It's good that the K-7 meets your needs. It meets mine as well for >> the most part. But you don't need a 300% enlargement to see the >> advantages on the K-5 in low light. While those are due only in part >> to the dynamic range, they are very real advantages that are easy to >> see even in web sized images. Paul > > Paul, if you can "point your finger" at them by showing a pair of images from > K-7 and K-5 where it will be evident what kind of advantage K-5 has on K-7, > I'd be grateful. > That would still be somewhat apples to oranges, since they would be different photos. But when I have time, perhaps tonight, I will record the same image with both cameras at high ISO in low light.
> Boris > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > 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 PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
