Yes, and it seems that some people think PentaxForums is Nikon biased and they understated the Pentax advantages. Very bizarre.

It's a review, not a lab test. But that's fine and there are many holes that could be picked in the process. It's done you a good turn Mike if the sample photos are helpful and it's my rating based what I handled for a few days, in line with the EPZ process.

VFM will improve as prices drop, but there's no way to measure these things. It's as bad as the marks given in camera club competitions, the judge is always wrong. Unless you're the winner of course.

It's all relative and it depends on what output size (print/web, etc) you need.

The non-AA filter cameras are crisper.

Exactly, and it's a major unique feature that deserved attention. This is a first for Pentax and others will be looking at it with keen interest.

The AF tracking needs a suitable subject to try it on and no doubt others will in time find such subjects.

Two reasons DrOrloff.

One is the allocation of space, which is defined by the requirements of the site. The review could have been much. much longer, but it would be out of step with the format of all the other reviews.

The second is that there was no real opportunity to make such a test in any meaningful way. In the time available the basics had to be covered. It has to be said that trying to demonstrate moire effects took an inordinate amount of time, but that was a high priority and had to be done first.

An example would be that a macro shot made hand held would still have the potential for missing the point of focus, camera shake, maybe not applying the correct amount of exposure compensation. We could end up with a picture not quite there but with more pixels, thus negating any advantage.

Now put the cameras on a tripod, focus more carefully and apply any other necessary adjustments and the difference becomes more marked. As we move to that higher standard, so the need for that improved technique increases.

I've been looking at the results since that was finished and I thought it would be interesting to see a comparison of K-5 IIs and K-3. That's why on Sunday I dashed back to Astley Green Colliery Museum to shoot the lens images. I'd already shot them with another copy of the 18-135mm.

The limitations with this are the different day, so the lighting is not identical, and a slight change in the actual shooting position. The latter isn't as bad as I thought but it depended on what was parked in the way.

You can take the originals from the reviews and they look like this:

K-5 IIs



K-3



Enlarged sections showing the same field of view look like this:

K-5 IIs



K-3



The K-3 image has very clear advantages and this is maintained right through the ISO range. As mentioned in the review even at ISO 51200 although the 16MP cameras have less noise, the K-3 still has the edge on detail. Here's a very extreme sample, shot in almost total darkness apart from the leaking light from the magic lantern. It's actually two pictures because the projected image was bright by comparison to the rest of it:

I can agree with all of that fletcher8, well thought through.

That seems to fly in the face of the generally accepted theory that it's the photographer and not the kit. Could it not be possible that your photography could actually worsen?

I've seen someone at a group shoot struggling to get his fancy Nikon to work, lost in menus and switches and unable to sort it out. Everyone else was just getting on with it. This is just one example of how non-intuitive kit can bog you down.

Price reductions, compared to say a year or so ago, include the 18-270mm, 10-17mm, 50mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.8, 18-135mm, just off the top of my head.