On Oct 31, 2012, at 10:11 PM, John Sessoms wrote: > From: Larry Colen > >> A couple of automotive analogies occur to me. >> >> First of all, complaining that the K-5 isn't full frame is like >> complaining that the Corvette doesn't have a V12. >> >> It also seems to me that the folks who buy a DSLR based on its >> automatic features are like people who buy a sports car based on its >> automatic transmission. (Yes, John, I know) In many ways modern >> automatic transmissions will outperform even a good driver with a >> manual transmission, but if I really wanted to get my car around the >> track in the least amount of time, I'd hire a professional to race it >> for me. > > > > Larry, I find that pretty damn offensive actually. Just so you know. > > If you want a V12 Corvette with an automatic transmission and a professional > driver to race it for you, go for it. If you want the K-5 in any of it's > multitude of incarnations, BUY ONE. It's your money, spend it how it pleases > you.
That's not what I want. My point is that the Vette is a fairly expensive car, just as the K-5 is a fairly expensive camera. However, it outperforms cars that cost quite a bit more than it does, and for that matter, the vast majority of people who own one. Feel free to draw any analogies to cameras that you care to. The top of the line Ferraris and Lamborghinis have V12 engines. However the number of pistons is not what makes the cars perform well. Putting a V12 in the Vette wouldn't necessarily even make it perform better. Note that the six cylinder E-type jag out performed the V12. > > What you just don't seem to be able to grasp is that I want something > different. I don't know what you are looking for in a camera, we've had enough back and forth between various people here that I don't remember who said what. If what you really want is a big heavy point and shoot with interchangeable lenses, then judging a DSLR based on its automatic features is an entirely valid approach. Going back to the automotive analogy (Sorry Bob), what I enjoy about driving isn't so much the going fast as the doing. It's the same thing with photography. The nice thing about Pentax, especially the K-5, is that a skillful photographer can get amazing image quality out of it, arguably the best in its class. The problem, at least for some, is that it does actually take some skill to get that image quality out of it. > > Don't tell me I'm stupid because I don't want what you want. I'm not saying that you are stupid, and certainly not for wanting something different than I do. Boris is the only person I know who owns a K-5 and isn't completely overjoyed with its image quality. Then again, I know a lot of people who have had much better luck with their K20 or their AF540 than I have. About the only photos that I've lost that pretty much weren't blatant user error were in low light situations, when it was too dark to optically focus and I was relying on autofocus. There are two scenarios that I've lost photos in this way. One was because the autofocus area was too big, and it focused on something other than I thought it was, and they were close enough that I didn't notice it on the review image. The other was when the camera simply couldn't autofocus in such low light, and the K5-II seems to have done a lot to help that problem. When the K-7 came out, I picked up a K20 for $700, which isn't a lot less than the tail end of the K-5s are selling for. When the K20 came out, I suspect that it's list price was a lot closer to the $1200 list price of the K5-II, than the $800 street price of the K5classic. What, specifically, are you looking for in a DSLR? Other than that it costs less than $800? In bright light it's pretty hard to see any effective difference in image quality of just about any DSLR this side of the K100. I'm not saying that you should get a K-5, I'm just wondering what it is that it lacks that you are looking for in a new camera. There were one or two usability things, and I don't even remember what they were, that I liked better about my K20 than my K-5, but in every other way it outperforms my old K20 like night and day. The metering accuracy is improved enough to be useful. The autofocus is leagues better. Dynamic range is hugely better, so even when the preview JPEG seems blown out, I can often recover the details. And noise on the other end is spectacular. I showed pictures last week that had been underexposed by about four or five stops that I recovered perfectly usable images from. The electronic level is tremendously usable. The astrotracer is a lot of fun, even if it isn't a "stock" feature. When I do need to manually focus in low light, or on a macro that is awkwardly placed, using live view for focusing, and/or composition is tremendously useful, though it could be a lot better. I could go on, but predicting the demise of Pentax because the K-5 isn't good enough seems very strange to me. -- 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.
