Sure, but I'd like to see the K5, Kr, and Kx compared as well. I mean, my K7 has all that other stuff and it's a terrible camera.
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 4:53 PM, P N Stenquist <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Nov 9, 2010, at 4:31 PM, CheekyGeek wrote: > >> That K-7 image looks like my old K200D at ISO 1600. >> (Which would make it a 2 stop improvement) but still an unfortunate >> amount of noise, in my book. >> Those who think the K-7 image looks GOOD have to be K-7 owners. >> : ) >> >> I'd rather see a comparison between the K-x at 6400 and the K5 at 6400 >> and see how much improvement an extra $1000 makes. >> > Noise is only a small part of it. You also get better exposure control, > weather sealing, better build quality, better write speed, better battery > life and you don't get lumped in with people who buy red cameras:-). > Paul >> >> Darren Addy >> Kearney, Nebraska >> >> -- >> 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. > -- Steve Desjardins -- 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.
