On Oct 2, 2011, at 12:01 PM, Bruce Walker wrote: > On 11-10-02 2:52 PM, Larry Colen wrote: >> >> Note that the image quality of the K20 isn't bad, and in good light, it's >> pretty good but it took some practice to be able to match the low light >> perfprmance of the K100 with it. > > Larry you *must* have meant to compare the low light perf of the K-x. The > K100D has poor low light performance that the K20D *easily* beats, with no > effort at all. No comparison whatsoever.
Nope. I had put so much effort into every tweak I could to get everything out of the K100, that when I first tried using the K20 in low light, the results were worse than what I was getting with the K100. Even once I got it working, it always had that annoying blue noise. I was eventually able to get a stop or two better performance out of the K20, but I was never pleased with it's low light performance. That's why I got the K-x when I could pretend to afford one. > > -bmw > > -- > 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. -- 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.
