Well said. Add that to the post I made on the site: "Some points you and your readers are trying to make have flawed premisses, in my opinion. 1. The out of focus and seriously CA'd 'O' on the Sony side presents an image that our naturally critical eyes find faulty.
2. Sony makes lots of sensors, of varying qualities. Can't compare images or low light characteristics between them. 3. If you didn't have comparable lenses for each camera, you should have waited until you did to do the test. 4. The size of the images should have been matched. Having more pixels puts the Sony at a disadvantage , as I doubt a Sony user would make prints or display images online 10% larger to match the 72 dpi viewing standard. All that being said, you did in some manner show the K-5's image capture, processing and handling to be better than the Sony's. But you must admit the cameras are not really comparable in these aspects. Ergo, the K-5 is still a better camera overall, which you proved. Just not in a fair test. But absolutely none the less. :-)" On May 10, 2012, at 10:17 , Bruce Walker wrote: > Can't help thinking this would be even a bigger smack-down if he'd > posted 100% crops from raw images -- no processing at all. Too many > variables as soon as the image hits the JPEG processor. > > > On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 8:58 PM, Brian Walters <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> From Larry's Bête Noire, The Phoblographer. >> >> Might be of interest to some - well, me anyway - seeing as I've just >> ordered a K-5. >> >> >> >> http://www.thephoblographer.com/2012/05/08/iso-torture-test-sony-a77-vs-pentax-k-5/ Joseph McAllister [email protected] Playing Bridge is a lot like sex. You'd better have a great partner or, you'd better have a really good hand. -- 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.
