On Jul 11, 2014, at 4:19 PM, Bipin Gupta <[email protected]> wrote: > We have a small group in India called [email protected]. Most > of us have the K-30, K-50, K-5 / K-5 II / K-5 IIs and a few K-3. > I have the later Ricoh model of the K-5 bought from Henry's Toronto > with the 18-135 as a kit. > > The K-5 II and K-5 IIs are definitely better manufactured with tighter > Quality Assurance than the K-5. Also Auto Focus is much faster in > low light than the K-5. There are other claims for superiority, but I > am not convinced as a Techie and a Master Mechanic. > > The K-5 II is absolutely identical to the K-5 IIs except that it does > not have the Low Pass Filter and hence produces sharper photos. > > I would not give Moire much prominence as it also appears on certain > dresses or patterned clothing even with my K-5 - easily removed in PP. > So I would go for the K-5 IIs because of the rare instances of Moire > that you "might encounter" - note might.
I had the opportunity to briefly play with a K-3 a few weeks back. Completely aside from any performance advantages, the button layout on the back would be nearly enough to tempt me to buy one rather than a K-5. The button arrangement on the back of the K-5 is such that I’m often hitting live view rather than the green button or the focus point select. From what I hear the autofocus has also been improved as well. The K-5II still seems to have a slight edge in low light/high ISO situations, so if like me you do a lot of shooting in stupid low light, the K-5 has some performance advantages over the K-3. > > Every camera generation is an improvement just like new generation of > human beings. Evolution doesn’t select specifically for improvement, it just selects for passing on your DNA. For example evolution will select for people who are not intelligent enough to understand the benefits of contraceptions over those that actually do the math on the relative costs of contraception and unplanned pregnancies. > > You will be mighty pleased with the K-5 IIs. And if you have the > moolah, jump on the K-3. > > Now a Pro friend of mine says - Lenses are more important than camera > bodies - she buys only "L" lenses for her Canon 5D Mark III. And everybody says that the photographer is more important than the gear, but that doesn’t stop even the best photographers for spending money to get better gear. You have to look at your whole system and see what component can make the biggest improvement. If you already have a decent selection of good lenses, a body that gets the same performance at a two stop higher ISO can do more for your money to improve the quality of your photos than buying a bunch of quality lenses that are one or two stops faster. If you do most of your photography in good light, sensor performance won’t be such an issue. Likewise for some people autofocus speed and accuracy are critical and for others they are irrelevant. I suppose in your friend’s case, that’s why she only spends $5,000 for the 5D rather than $8,000 for the 1D. Of course, if she had bought the 6D, she would have had enough money to spare to buy yet another L lens. -- 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.
