On Jan 13, 2011, at 1:02 AM, Larry Colen wrote: > > On Jan 12, 2011, at 9:57 PM, Tim Bray wrote: > >> OK, let me seize my chance to show my ignorance. Compared to a K-5 or >> equivalent, the 645D is bigger, heavier, slower, and doesn't have as >> many interesting lenses. Its only advantage is a mega-huge sensor >> with correspondingly many pixels. So my conclusion was that this >> kind of thing is really only useful for those who want to do >> large-format printing, magazine pages and up. >> >> Is there any other reason to use one, aside from it being beautiful >> and seductive and all that? -Tim > > Bong posted some shots taken with one at relatively high ISO, that looked > better than many cameras at ISO 400. I believe that it'll also handily > outperform the K-5 on things like color bit depth, dynamic range etc. It > also brightens your teeth, freshens your breath and makes you irresistible to > members of the appropriate sex.
I believe the color bit depth of the K5 and 645D are identical. The K5 is reportedly better in regard to noise at high ISO, but I'd want to see for myself. Not sure about dynamic range. Paul (who wants a 645D, whether he needs one or not:-) > > > -- > Larry Colen [email protected] sent from i4est > > > > > > -- > 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.
