Why is an OM-D better than a Pentax K-5?

Started May 9, 2012 | Discussions thread
Pete Berry Veteran Member • Posts: 3,036
Here's the evidence, PhotoHawk..

...in ultimate RAW IQ, where all the four 16mp m4/3's handily exceed that of the 16mp K-5. Now for BIFs and high-speed action shots, the C-AF of the K-5 should win out. Otherwise, I'll take my GH2, and possibly compliment it with the E-M5 if the GH3 falls short of expectations.

The K-5 is surprisingly soft in 100% crops - both at base and higher ISO's - compared to not only the E-M5, but the GH2, G3, and the little GX1 which shares the G3 sensor. The RAW clips shown here are entirely unmodified.

Pentax is obviously applying background NR to it's RAW files, increasing with ISO, and irreversibly degrading detail. For the base ISO image softness, an overly aggressive A-A filter?

Now I'm not going to cross-post this to the Pentax forum, as that would obviously be trolling, wouldn't it?

PhotoHawk wrote:

I have to be frank here. The OMD is not a replacement for the K5. In my very the K5 is a much better camera. In my view it is better than the D7000 and you might well ask that question to0 - is the OMD better than the D7000.
This is nothing more than a troll question and you should know better.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Leo
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow