I'm sure. But I bet that the DA* 300 combined with the 1.7 is much better than the Sigma and 1.4.

On what grounds?

It's more contrasty, sure. And it's smaller, so it appears sharper. It's also at 100mm longer focal length, so all other things being equal, it should be better.

On the web, I'd probably agree it has more impact.

But in terms of actual visible detail, I'm not sure I agree. It's a tough one to call, with the different lighting angle and size.

Yes, I know you've done some excellent ones, Mike. But that extra 100mm does make a difference.

Definitely worth a try, unless you've already verified that the AF is set up exactly right. Accurate focusing is so critical.

The 2s timer is good, the 3s remote release would be better, but I don't think it's made much difference in your case here.

By the way, you don't need to switch SR off. The camera does that for you automatically in any of the delayed or remote modes.

I thought I'd done well until I saw this one, from a Canon 7D and the 100-400L.

No idea what iPhoto does for sharpening, but adding contrast always make it look worse in my experience.

Partly cloudy is not a problem, provided theres no high level cloud (can be very difficult to see), and provided obviously the cloud is not obscuring the moon (which it doesn't appear to be in your case).

Much better than cloudless high pressure nights, where there's a low level haze that's ruins everything.

How high in the sky was it when you took it?

Conditions were quite good, I thought, when the moon was full the other day.

The full moon is very hard to do well - the absence of shadows means detail is lost, even if the image itself is sharp.

This one would look a lot better smaller, IMO.

What did you do for sharpening?

I took this one a few days ago. It's the best I've achieved with the K-5 and the Pentax SMC-A 400mm F5.6, and I'm not sure I can do much better. It was the best of about 15 shots that night. Remote delayed release, obviously. Careful focusing. Moon quite high in the sky. No high pressure haze at low level for the light to have to fight through.

When you're pushing at the limits of lens and sensor, it does get tricky, for sure.

A few more things, as I think about them.

I also really like the dynamic range enhancement for shadows and highlights. It was just too easy to clip the skies with the K10D and ruin otherwise good shots.

Green button stop-down metering with pre-A lenses in manual now works quite well.

The only things I can think of that I really don't like are:

- having to press the button in to turn the mode dial.
- the 'bzzzt' noise it makes when you switch it on

And I think the SD slot door is better on the K10D, with its dedicated key. I'm guessing the slidy one on the K-5 might become loose over time.

I've had a K10D for four years, got a K-5 about six weeks ago.

It's a little smaller, and a little lighter. After only about 5 minutes, I had completely adapted to the different feel, and after 5 minutes more, preferred it. My hands aren't all that large, so a smaller camera suits me very well (I don't like grips, though I owned one for long enough to form a view).

As far as low light AF is concerned, it's noticeably better, definitely, but I'm not convinced it's a lot better. I wouldn't describe it as a revolutionary improvement. I had a go just now, in a poorly lit room, with the 55-300, and the 17-70, on both the K10D and K-5. Low light AF was better on both cameras with the 17-70 than the 55-300, and better with the K-5 than the K10D with both lenses.

With the AF assist off, and difficult (dark, low contrast) subjects, it was quite slow, but found a lock more often on the K-5 than the K10D.

The AF assist light is quite effective, though, at short range, and is an enormous improvement over the noisy and intrusive strobing flash on the K10D.

My impression is that in good light, AF is faster too. This picture of swans in flight was the sort of thing I very rarely caught with the K10D. However, there's no doubt in my mind that some of the newer lenses focus faster than some of the older screw-drive ones, so it's quite tricky to make a really thorough comparison without going to enormous trouble.


I prefer the K-5 controls overall. The layout changes don't take long to get used to, so much so that the control positions now feel strange on the K10D.

The menu system is much improved, and as DaveX says, the way it remembers the menu you were last using is a really nice touch - it makes changing settings, taking a picture and then changing them back very quick.

High ISO performance is much better than the K10D.

Here's a shot I took in a fairly dark church, at ISO 12800 (yes, 12800):

[IMG]http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t244/chris5gd/Technical/IMGP0198.jpg[/IMG]

Here's a 100% crop. I've done nothing to the DNG at all except convert it to JPG:

[IMG]http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t244/chris5gd/Technical/IMGP0198-cr.jpg[/IMG]

Crunch time for me will be when I come to start photographing aeroplanes. So far, I'm liking the K-5 a lot.

Ah, I see what you mean now. No, mine doesn't do that.

And it did with the K-7? That's a shame then, it would be a nice feature to have as an option - not sure I should be forced to have it do this.

I never had a K-7, so it's not something I miss.