11-24-2010, 08:30 AM
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1290546382' post='4368']
First impressions:
The JPEG quality is terrible (in terms of pixel-level-sharpness).
The RAW quality is Okayish - 25% blur - which is significant. Based on these initial tests I'd conclude that it has a rather aggressive AA filter.
The max. LW/PH are barely higher than the ones of the K10D. So far for the fanboy criticism that I should have migrated earlier ...
[/quote]
Just to clarify (because the former comment is already cited out there).
K5 @ 16mp:
max. 2500 LW/PH (RAW)
max. 2050 LW/PH (JPEG ****)
For comparison:
A33 @ 14mp:
max. 2850 LW/PH (RAW)
max. 2500 LW/PH (JPEG)
Other than that the K5 seems to be a very fine camera from a user's perspective. Please note that I'm simply requiring a camera for a lab environment and the K5 is not substantially "better" for the lens tests (and only for the lens tests) than the old K10D.
First impressions:
The JPEG quality is terrible (in terms of pixel-level-sharpness).
The RAW quality is Okayish - 25% blur - which is significant. Based on these initial tests I'd conclude that it has a rather aggressive AA filter.
The max. LW/PH are barely higher than the ones of the K10D. So far for the fanboy criticism that I should have migrated earlier ...
[/quote]
Just to clarify (because the former comment is already cited out there).
K5 @ 16mp:
max. 2500 LW/PH (RAW)
max. 2050 LW/PH (JPEG ****)
For comparison:
A33 @ 14mp:
max. 2850 LW/PH (RAW)
max. 2500 LW/PH (JPEG)
Other than that the K5 seems to be a very fine camera from a user's perspective. Please note that I'm simply requiring a camera for a lab environment and the K5 is not substantially "better" for the lens tests (and only for the lens tests) than the old K10D.