My daughter is shooting mostly weddings and portraits and she much prefers her K20D over my K5 because of the skintone renderings. I have to agree that the smoothness of the Samsung sensor is much better than what is found in the K5. High ISO performance however, is an entirely different matter.
-- Bruce -- Sent from Sony Tablet S Zos Xavius <[email protected]> wrote: >Interesting. I guess I'm not alone in preferring the out of the box >skin tones of the k-7 vs the k-5. Sometimes for skin tones the >embedded profile on the k-5 is better FWIW. In fact the embedded >profile is better for the k-5 than it was th the k-7. Just an opinion. > >On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Bill <[email protected]> >wrote: >> On 19/11/2013 9:10 AM, Darren Addy wrote: >>> >>> Saw this thread on dpreview: >http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52547225 >>> >>> The guy has 3 year's experience with the K-5. His verdict is "There >is >>> more visible noise at high ISO starting ISO 640. K-5 shots looked >>> cleaner. But, man, cropping ability and details of K-3 on top of >>> faster and more reliable AF, including now working well enough AF.C, >>> are simply amazing. Also metering is much more accurate, handling >>> highlights very well." >>> >>> Some good images of Birds In Flight (BIF) as examples. >>> >>> I believe that this illustrates why Pentax could very easily come >out >>> with a Full Frame DSLR that has the SAME MP as the K-3 and it would >>> still be a winner: Larger sensor sites would mean less noise (and >>> probably better high ISO performance) and so the FF image quality >>> would top the K-3 (for presumably more money). However, if Pentax >>> takes what they learned from making the K-3 (in terms of AF >>> performance, exposure system, high frame rate, and switchable AA) >and >>> it would be a serious Home Run. >>> >>> This is the main reason that I think that K-5 and K-5ii owners could >>> pretty easily wait for the FF in 2014, rather than hopping on the >K-3 >>> now. Think of it as putting $1299 towards your eventual full frame >>> body. >>> >> At base ISO, the K3 is as good as the K5, and one of the first things >I >> noticed is how much nicer the K3 files are to work with in my >environment >> (YMMV). In the studio K3 files are as nice as the K7 files. I didn't >like >> the look that I got from the K5 as much as the K7 in terms of flesh >tone >> rendering. >> That my K5 had useless AF didn't enamor it to me either. The K3 is >certainly >> a big upgrade over the K5 on many, many levels. The K5II is what the >K5 >> should have been except for the bozoness of Hoya, and I expect the K3 >is >> more of an MP upgrade than anything else. >> Anyone using any of the K5 emulations would do well to consider the >K3, >> unless there is no or minimal investment in small image circle >lenses. I'm >> OK that way, I have a good selection of each, but someone who buys a >FF >> camera does need to think about the new glass he might need if he is >> changing format from APS-C. >> >> bill >> >> >> -- >> 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.
