Just a K-5 IIs test.
Jim Beverlin wrote:
Ron - Then in your opinion does both the KII and KIIS take sharper, better defined images than the K-5?
I shoot most of the time with f4 or f5.6 lenses in daylight. If that is all that I ever did then, IMO, there would be very little difference between the K-5, K-5 II, and K-5 IIs. However, most folks also shoot in low light and/or artificail lighting, and many use faster lenses. Under those conditions the K-5 II and K-5 IIs is the better choice IMO. In addition, again IMO, K-5 II/K-5 IIs tracking via the Expanded Area AF in AF-C is better than the K-5 with just AF-C tracking. Note that in the preceding I mentioned faster lenses. IMO, the K-5 II and K-5 IIs are more accurate and more consistant with lenses that are faster than f2.8 than the K-5 is.
So, to boil it all down, if I had no camera at the moment and the choice was between the K-5 (about $600), the K-5 II (about $750 to $800), and the K-5 IIs (about $900 to $1000) then I would choose the K-5 II. If I already had a K-5 then I would just continue to wait for a month or two to see what the new K-3 is all about. Note: The preceding was written as if I also had to considered finances. The reason I own a K-5, K-5 II, K-5 IIs, and all of the lenses I have is because I don't have to concider finances.
Ron - 'We don't have time to go take pics this afternoon Carl.'
Carl - 'What do you mean? It will only take 1/1000s.'
'Keep your eyes looking forward. However, glance back now and then to see where you've come from. It will put a smile on your face.' ~ brandrx