K-5, the best of the APS-C sensor cameras...Canon the worst!

<p>We already knew the K-5 was the best of the APS-C cameras, and one of the top rated cameras on DX0's testing, just like the K10D was a few years ago (Pentax last Sony sensored flagship). </p>

<p>Pentax actually flipped the tables on Canon, no longer do you have to politely explain to Canon (or Nikon shooters) that their camera gets a mere 1/3-2/3 stop advantage, rather than the 2-3 stops the rumor mills circulate at times. In fact, Pentax now has the 2/3 stop over Canon and Sony. <br>

<br />In terms of DR, Pentax takes the lead at the lowest ISO and upper ISO, it is tied with Nikon at mid ISOs. Canon and Sony really drop off in comparison to the Nikon and Pentax offerings. </p>

<p>They even compare the Nikon APS sensors to the D700 (full frame). The results are not surprising. APS-C is still about a stop worse at high ISO. (though that is offset by the ability to open up 1 stop for equivalent DOF, so in reality 1 stop is OK, more would be significant). DR goes to the APS-C sensor, and color depth is tied. </p>

<p>Anyway, while it appears that Sony was optimizing it's sensor and camera for video, DXO seems puzzled by the 60D's low scores. For me a little more shine has been taken off our fearless market leader. I wish the 7D was included in this, but I suppose the 60D is newer, and one would have expected better results with Canon's in house sensor designs. </p>

<p><a href="http://dxomark.com/index.php/Our-publications/DxOMark-reviews/DxOMark-review-for-APS-C-camera-2010-who-takes-the-lead">http://dxomark.com/index.php/Our-publications/DxOMark-reviews/DxOMark-review-for-APS-C-camera-2010-who-takes-the-lead</a></p>

<p>Weird, my D700 from 2008 is included in your link of This Best of 2010 DxO list.</p>

<h3><a href="http://dxomark.com/index.php/Camera-Sensor/All-tested-sensors/Nikon/D7000">Tests and reviews for Nikon D7000</a></h3>

<p><br /><a href="http://dxomark.com/index.php/Camera-Sensor/All-tested-sensors/Nikon/D7000"><img src="http://dxomark.com/dakdata/xml/D7000/vignette2.jpg" alt="" width="109" /></a> <img src="http://dxomark.com/design/ezwebin/images/background/separateur_vignette.gif" alt="" /></p>

<h3><a href="http://dxomark.com/index.php/Camera-Sensor/All-tested-sensors/Sony/Alpha-580">Tests and reviews for Sony Alpha 580</a></h3>

<p><br /><a href="http://dxomark.com/index.php/Camera-Sensor/All-tested-sensors/Sony/Alpha-580"><img src="http://dxomark.com/dakdata/xml/Alpha_580/vignette2.jpg" alt="" width="109" /></a> <img src="http://dxomark.com/design/ezwebin/images/background/separateur_vignette.gif" alt="" /></p>

<h3><a href="http://dxomark.com/index.php/Camera-Sensor/All-tested-sensors/Nikon/D700">Tests and reviews for Nikon D700</a></h3>

<p><br /><a href="http://dxomark.com/index.php/Camera-Sensor/All-tested-sensors/Nikon/D700"><img src="http://dxomark.com/dakdata/xml/D700/vignette2.jpg" alt="" width="109" /></a> <img src="http://dxomark.com/design/ezwebin/images/background/separateur_vignette.gif" alt="" /></p>

<h3><a href="http://dxomark.com/index.php/Camera-Sensor/All-tested-sensors/Canon/EOS-60D">Tests and reviews for Canon EOS 60D </a></h3>

<p><br /><a href="http://dxomark.com/index.php/Camera-Sensor/All-tested-sensors/Canon/EOS-60D"><img src="http://dxomark.com/dakdata/xml/EOS_60D/vignette2.jpg" alt="" width="109" /></a> <img src="http://dxomark.com/design/ezwebin/images/background/separateur_vignette.gif" alt="" /></p>

<h3><a href="http://dxomark.com/index.php/Camera-Sensor/All-tested-sensors/Sony/SLT-Alpha-55">Tests and reviews for Sony SLT Alpha 55</a></h3>

<p><br /><a href="http://dxomark.com/index.php/Camera-Sensor/All-tested-sensors/Sony/SLT-Alpha-55"><img src="http://dxomark.com/dakdata/xml/SLT_Alpha_55/vignette2.jpg" alt="" width="109" /></a> <img src="http://dxomark.com/design/ezwebin/images/background/separateur_vignette.gif" alt="" /></p>

<h3><a href="http://dxomark.com/index.php/Camera-Sensor/All-tested-sensors/Nikon/D90">Tests and reviews for Nikon D90</a></h3>

<p><br /><a href="http://dxomark.com/index.php/Camera-Sensor/All-tested-sensors/Nikon/D90"><img src="http://dxomark.com/dakdata/xml/D90/vignette2.jpg" alt="" width="109" /></a> <img src="http://dxomark.com/design/ezwebin/images/background/separateur_vignette.gif" alt="" /></p>

<h3><a href="http://dxomark.com/index.php/Camera-Sensor/All-tested-sensors/Pentax/K5">Tests and reviews for Pentax K-5</a></h3>

<p><br /><a href="http://dxomark.com/index.php/Camera-Sensor/All-tested-sensors/Pentax/K5"><img src="http://dxomark.com/dakdata/xml/K5/vignette2.jpg" alt="" width="109" /></a><br />Anyways,</p>

<p>Its 2011 and I've been using D700 full frame with Nikon made glass the past year. I parked all my Canon gear, though wife still uses it, I am waiting to see who blows my mind, Canon's 5D III or Nikon's D800. I'd like to trim down to one brand of kit but with the ongoing disaster in Japan I suspect I'm another year or two away from Canon and Nikon's next wave of affordable full frame cameras.</p>

<p>Stain free Pentax K-5 from the current serial number series 4xxxxxxxx sure looks sweet, a great choice for those who want a high end crop format dslr to drive their Pentax mount glass.<br />Pentax seems perfectly fine offering a $1,400 K-5 & $10,000 645D with zero Pentax choices in between.</p>

<p>What if one wants to drop just $2,500 on 24x36 D700, for more sensor real estate ?<br />Pentax owners then shop elsewhere or spend 4x the money ;^O</p>

<p>Silver K-5 at full list price sure sold out quick, huh ?</p>

<p><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/755619-REG/Pentax_14898_K_5_Limited_Edition_Digital.html">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/755619-REG/Pentax_14898_K_5_Limited_Edition_Digital.html</a></p>

<p>When are you going to buy your 6 month old technology Pentax K-5 Justin ?</p>

<p>I have to say the D700 from 3 years ago technology remains a fantastic camera!<br />Paired with my Nikon Japan 14-24mm 2.8 I am hard pressed to consider buying another camera from either Canon or Pentax.</p>

<p>One day Canon will respond to Nikon's 2008 D700 & I suspect the following month Nikon will then respond as well.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"Worst APS-C camera" is like "slowest formula-1 car". Sure, there probably is one, but anything with an APS-C sensor made in the past few years is probably pretty damn good. Stop pixel peeping, get out of the house, and go take interesting pictures with interesting subjects.<br>

Gearheads make me sick.</p>

<p>Canon boo Pentax yayayay.</p>

<p>Personally, I really just don't care how things compare among APS-C cameras. I don't use them. How does Pentax compare in full-frame? Oh, wait a minute, they don't have one. Well, so much for that.</p>

<p>And, more fundamentally, I agree with Matt White... stop boasting or grousing about some lab's test scores and go shoot something. Anyone who even feels the need to call attention to this sort of thing, or post "Canon boo Pentax yayayay" (unless that was meant sarcastically?), is clearly focusing on the wrong things and probably suffering from an inferiority complex. Grow up, guys.</p>

<p>The K-5 looks like a very nice camera, but as a system Pentax is unfortunately rather limited. For example, as far as I know there has never been a Pentax tilt/shift lens (only the SMC 28mm shift-only lens and one or two third-party offerings from the likes of Zenitar and Arax), and Pentax has no full-frame digital body. This is enough to exclude them from consideration in my view. They are doing some very nice stuff in medium format, but that has nothing to do with 35mm or APS-C.</p>

<p>-pro choose mid format sooner or later ,can be some one time start doing foto- wide Vs. light ?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Personally, I really just don't care how things compare among APS-C cameras. I don't use them. How does Pentax compare in full-frame? Oh, wait a minute, they don't have one. Well, so much for that.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But the 645D made the full frame Canon 1D look like it was faulty, so if you are playing that game, then it looks like you lose at that too. Again, I hate to gloat, but it looks what I had been saying for years is true. Full frame is marginally better than APS-C at much higher cost when lenses and bodies are put into a system. 645D is significantly better than full frame, and with Pentax being competitive to top end FF cameras with the 645D, the cost to quality ratio is much more in favor of 645D than ever before.</p>

<p>Lindy, if you read the review, they do compare the D700, mostly for shi-giggles. In the review they showed the D700 is superior by 1 stop in noise, but equivalent or worse in the other areas. For anyone shooting at lower ISO this is completely irrelevant, and furthermore as noted, 1 stop is neglible because it can be offset by opening up a stop.</p>

<p>I realize if you spent a lot of money on full frame camera this fact isn't something anyone cares to admit. In reality for full frame to be worthwhile (at current prices) over it's 645 and APS-C counterparts it would have to do a lot better than 1 stop, which again, can be made up by opening up the aperture for equivalent DOF. For it to be superior to 645D it has a long way to go with image quality. So it's negligible vs APS-C, and inferior to 645, how is it the holy grail?</p>

<p>For me the review was interesting because Canon spends more than any of the mainstream DSLR makers on R&D, and it's gone with it's own sensors for some time. On the flipside Sony and Kodak seem to make a great sensor. If Canon was Pentax (or even Nikon), would it still be in business using inferior sensors generation after generation?</p>

<p>I will say one thing, I get a kick out of how seriously certain people take this stuff. Remember, Pentax/Oly/Sony wasn't the company that took out the full page "ad of lies" in Pop Photo a few years ago blasting in camera SR as a scam, that would be the company with the biggest marketing machine. Who is that?</p>

<p>Medium format is a different ball game altogether. Even price-wise the difference is significant; street price for a Canon 1Ds III body is about $6100, for a Nikon D3x about $7100 (according to a quick check of Google Shopping); the Pentax 645D body is almost $10K. Furthermore, there are less expensive full-frame offerings, including the Nikon D700, Canon 5D Mark II, and Sony A850, all under $3000. There is also the issue that in many cases full-frame and APS-C can natively (i.e. without an adapter and with full functionality) share full-frame lenses, so there is an upgrade path from APS-C to full-frame that doesn't exist going to medium format. As far as I know, the Pentax APS-C system has no compatibility with components for the 645D, or vice versa. Considering all this, I regard your "medium format is even better" argument as a red herring. </p>

<p>Everything I've read shows the 645D is fantastic. The high rez image of SanFransico I saw months ago was insane. Details, details...</p>

<p>I suspect a 24x36 K Mount would also be fantastic, something I'd actually consider along with D800 & 5D III.<br />I still have most of my Pentax gear incase the full frame K Mount gets made & sold soon.<br />K-5 looks great, still none to handle locally, so no hands~on testdrive with my glass inhand for me to see what's up.</p>

<p>The K-5 owners seem to really dig it.</p>

<p>Its looks to be The Best K Mount Dslr Pentax has ever made.</p>

<p>Too bad for me Pentax won't cram a 24x36 Sony Sensor into a K-5 sized & spec'd Dslr & offer for sale by let's say:</p>

<p>Dec 1st 2011.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Craig,</p>

<p>Exactly, medium format is a true "upgrade", it's not a parallel upgrade. You hit the nail on the head, it's a completely different system, but not a red herring.</p>

<p>As far as the lenses, Pentax has always allowed adaptation between systems.</p>

<p>Obviously you can't mount a smaller format lens on a bigger system, and even if you could, you are now effectively shooting with a smaller system, negating any advantage to the bigger system. But you can use 67 lenses on 645, 35mm, APS-C cameras.</p>

<p>You can use 645 lenses on 35mm and APS-C.</p>

<p>You can use 35mm lenses on APS-C.</p>

<p>BTW, as far as I know (and I could be as wrong as you were), Canon doesn't offer a crop mode like Nikon did (and still does???) for it's APS-C lenses to FF? Is this correct? If it is, then a person with APS-C Canon lenses has to buy an entirely new kit. That said, I feel like I'm probably wrong on that, I'm sure Canon offers a similar crop mode. </p>

<p>Secondly, as I noted, there is no real benefit to FF over APS-C, the "upgrade path" is marketing to sell more cameras. If you go into a camera store (as people on this and other forums have noted on several occasions) the camera store tries to sell you an APS-C camera first, telling you full out that FF is an upgrade path. The logic they give is "you aren't ready for that level of camera". My impression is a FF camera works just like an APS-C camera, no special knowledge to use it beyond that of any other camera. So why wouldn't everyone be ready for FF on day 1? Why upgrade at all? As a matter of fact, this begs the question, why does Canon produce upper end APS-C cameras at all?</p>

<p>I guess I don't understand the upgrade path thing. Upgrade paths aren't about marketing and creating some nice little niche for future sales, but about a real benefit to the end user. Since FF offers a VERY marginal benefit over APS-C, I'm not entirely sure where the "upgrade path" is.</p>

<p>On the other hand, since 645 offers a substantial upgrade over both APS-C and FF, it would seem if you were going to invest into another system that you would be best off saving your pennies for another year or two and buying something significantly improved.</p>

<p>Purely an opinion, but I think a bulk of hard core full frame proponents, don't want to deal with simple crop factors, and more importantly, want to use their legacy lenses as they always have. That's fine, and there is nothing wrong with those reasons, but they are hardly reason to consider one format the holy grail.</p>

<p>I'm sure Canon will produce any camera they think there is enough of a market for. The 7D seems to be quite popular, but I don't see many 5D owners switching to it.</p>

<p>You probably know more about Pentax's current lens offerings than I do, but as far as Canon and Nikon go, the selection of lenses specifically designed for APS-C is pretty limited. Canon's EF-S (APS-C format) offerings include one ultra-wide zoom (10-22mm), a few variations of standard zoom (15-85mm, 17-55mm, 18-55mm, 18-135mm), one telephoto zoom (55-250mm), and one macro lens (60mm). Nikon's selection is similar, though they also offer a 35mm f/1.8 DX (APS-C) prime. In both cases, most of their APS-C lenses are not very fast; of the Canon EF-S zooms, only one is f/2.8, the others all being variable-max-aperture with f/3.5 or f/4 at the wide end. No fast primes, no super-telephotos (though of course 250mm on APS-C isn't too shabby in that regard), no longer macro lenses. Some of the lenses are quite good, but the lack of variety and fast apertures effectively forces anyone who wants fast glass, a selection of primes, or specialty lenses to buy them in full-frame format. Once you've done that, the upgrade path to full-frame does not involve buying a completely new kit; if you've planned ahead, you may not have to replace anything other than the body.</p>

<p>As to why Canon and Nikon don't produce more APS-C lenses, the question is why they would want to. They already offer fast 50mm primes (for example) for full-frame, and those lenses are already smaller and lighter than most EF-S zooms, so there's no pressing need to come out with (in effect) the same lens for the smaller format.</p>

<p>Another point, already made in this thread, is that comparing the K-5 to Canon's or Nikon's full-frame models is comparing the latest technology to cameras from three years ago. It's a valid insofar as that is what is on the market today, but the 5D2 and D700 are overdue for replacement. Once the 5D3 and D800 (or D700x... whatever they want to call it) come out, your claim that full-frame only offers a one-stop advantage will probably go up in smoke. If you think about it, it's actually kind of impressive that three-year-old models can beat today's latest even by one stop. If you really want to compare the difference in formats as such (without mixing time periods), you ought to compare contemporaneous models: the 5D2 to the 50D, the D700 to the D90. The difference there is not merely one stop.</p>

<p>No, actually, Canon full-frame DSLRs do not offer a crop mode for EF-S lenses, and in fact you can't mount EF-S lenses on full-frame cameras; the EF-S mount is slightly modified to prevent that (though you can mount EF lenses on APS-C cameras). One very good technical reason for this is that Canon took advantage of the smaller reflex mirror in APS-C cameras to allow their EF-S lenses to have shorter back focus distances that would interfere with a full-frame mirror.</p>

<p>Personally I think Nikon's automatic crop feature is silly. If I were shooting a Nikon full-frame camera with a DX lens, I'd rather do the cropping in post-production, where I would have the freedom to use the DX image circle however I liked, rather than being forced into a 3:2 aspect ratio.</p>

<p>Yes, you can use Pentax 67 lenses on a Pentax K-5, but you need a mount adapter. I could just as easily use a mount adapter to put the same lens on my Canon 5D2. Does the Pentax 67 to 35mm adapter fully support automatic aperture? If not, then there is no advantage to using a Pentax camera over a Canon, which will meter just fine with a P67 lens in stop-down mode.</p>

<p>Someone takes the DxO tests seriously? LOL!</p>

<p>Yeah, Daniel, that's a good point too. I think people usually take DxO seriously when DxO tells them what they want to hear.</p>

<p>I thought I should clarify my dig at the DxO test results. I do no trust them at all for three reasons:</p>

<p>* The majority of the time their results are at odds with the results from other sites such as DPReview and Imaging Resource.</p>

<p>* They have, on multiple occasions, posted some ridiculous ratings. They have rated small format DSLRs superior to modern MFDBs for example. (This is when Luminous Landscape stopped using and citing them.)</p>

<p>* I can personally verify that their DR ratings for the Canon 10D, 20D, and 7D are all incorrect. And they are not just off by a certain fudge factor either. They are all over estimated, but the 10D and 20D are severely over estimated making it look like there was hardly any improvement in the 7D when the 7D is easily 1.5-2 stops better.</p>

<p>It's not a coincidence that their conclusions are derived from a complex computer model rather than real world testing. If they performed some real world testing they might realize how off they are, and be driven to find out why.</p>

<p>For the heck of it I took a few minutes to compare the "best" K-5 to the "worst" 7D using sample images and DR graphs from IR and DPReview. I don't see a real difference either way. Certainly nothing that would survive post processing or printing, and really not even anything to see on screen.</p>

<p>I do agree with Justin that there's not a huge FF advantage any more. FF sensors are certainly better at high ISO (lower noise and higher detail retention) and have about a stop better DR. But it's not the difference FF fans make it out to be. But if the difference there is small then the difference between the top tier APS-C sensors is inconsequential.</p>

<p>The 645D does seem to be in a different league. Though I will note that I've seen one pair of test images made with macro lenses on each where the 645D was not substantially better than a 5D mkII. This surprised me because I've seen other pairs, made with WA and zoom lenses, where the 645D clearly was. It did raise the question as to how much of the difference comes down to lenses, specifically small vs medium format wide angles.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>They have rated small format DSLRs superior to modern MFDBs for example. (This is when Luminous Landscape stopped using and citing them.)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree with your reasons for distrusting DxO, but I would just like to point out that LL is so strongly pro-medium-format, and Michael Reichmann has such strong ties with medium-format digital camera makers such as Phase One (teaching at their workshops, etc.), that you could not expect them to admit that a smaller-format camera was better even if it was clearly true. And LL has no shortage of utter nonsense on their site, as well. Consider <a href="../digital-camera-forum/00XZII">this discussion</a> about an LL article from last year.</p>

<p>Craig some good points above, but...</p>

<p>1. The D700 was only a stop better than the K-x, which was either the same generation or very close, the new Sony sensor gains 4MP on that, so I'd expect if the next low MP Nikon FF has 4MP extra the improvement won't be as extensive as you think! So while it might not be fair to compare generations, it's also not quite accurate to think that the D800 will be magnitudes improved! I'd guess if they keep it at 12MP it will probably gain a little more, but then Sony can just introduce a 12MP APS-C with better SNR qualities as well. As has been shown with the Sony 10MP CCD for digital compacts, quite a bit is possible if you abandon the MP race!</p>

<p>2. Companies like Pentax and Olympus and Sony shouldn't be faulted for building ground up APS-C (or 4/3) lens systems. These lenses are smaller, do cost less, and aren't slow. So it makes the upgrade path a bit less inviting. The way Canon did it was basically telling people they had to upgrade to get better optics. BTW, the Pentax 50mm 1.4 is the best of the manufacturers 1.4 lenses. So they also "already" made a great 50mm as well. That isn't the point, it's being able to produce lenses that are overall better, cheaper and smaller. The bottom line is Canon created a forced necessity to upgrade, which I'm never a fan of. And I have seen plenty of post where people have moved from the 5D to the 7D. Were they happy long term? I have no idea, for all I know they made a horrible mistake and are now shooting 5DMIIs or looking forward to a 5DMIII. But people definitely did go from FF to APS-C in some cases.</p>

<p>3. The point about the automation on the Canon vs Pentax bodies is kinda moot. The reason, if Pentax bodies get better IQ (which they seem to have since about 2006), why would I shoot a Canon? So yes, we both get the same level of automation, Pentax still gets better IQ. The question to me is, if you owned a Canon system, why would you be shooting Pentax glass in the first place? It makes sense to me to put 645 lenses on my APS-C cameras because sometimes I have both systems in my camera bag. My 200mm F/4 for the 645N becomes a 300mm f/4 (and a compact one at that), on my Pentax DSLR. That means I only need to carry one telephoto for both systems, definitely worth losing automation for compactness and simplicity.</p>

<p>In summary, Canon forced the upgrade path to the much more expensive 24x36mm format by not giving it's consumers options and using the advantages of the smaller sensor. That's really a shame. Other companies embraced the ability to utilize a smaler imaging format and still be competitive in final image output.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Gearheads make me sick.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Heaven forbid photographers talk about equipment. That would be the end of the craft for sure.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Justin Serpico wrote:<br>

BTW, as far as I know (and I could be as wrong as you were), Canon doesn't offer a crop mode like Nikon did (and still does???) for it's APS-C lenses to FF? Is this correct? If it is, then a person with APS-C Canon lenses has to buy an entirely new kit. That said, I feel like I'm probably wrong on that, I'm sure Canon offers a similar crop mode.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That used to be true, and as far as I know, it still is. Canon designs their APS-C lenses to take advantage of the smaller mirror, so in some cases (wide angle, I presume) the rear element of the lens could come in the way of a FF mirror.</p>

<p>Also, as far as I know, Nikon still offers a crop mode when using APS-C lenses on FF cameras. They also offer a non-crop mode, for adventurous photographers who like living dangerously. I've seen quite a few pictures taken with the DX 35mm f/1.8 on D700's with the crop mode off—the natural vignetting is quite pleasing and works well in certain circumstances.</p>

<p>Although I believe test reports based on machine measurements do not tell the whole story, they do offer some useful information. It is nice to see yet another report fortifying the numerous others that show the K-5 to be an outstanding DSLR.</p>

<p>I expect to eventually get one when the price drops some and the silvers are back in stock. </p>

<p>Pentax has done a great job with their latest models in designing excellent IQ, with exceptional noise control, while hanging on to very good resolution at higher ISO settings. This knocks on the door of FF performance, though not providing the wide angle advantage of FF, in lacking a fast 24mm f/1.8, low distortion, wide angle equivelent. So a FF is a versatile format, but expensive. However, the better aps size DSLRs more than make up for that with superior tele offerings. Cropping a FF output in post process is not the same because a lot of MPs are thrown away. The aps DSLRs concentrate more MPs in a smaller area for normal to telephoto use. </p>

<p>Well the 15mm DA* is a wide angle 24mm equivalent lens. Low distortion too. Obviously it's an F/4, so it lacks your speed requirement.</p>

<p>It's possible to build such a lens, the question is would it sell.</p>

<p>Pentax shooters more so than other brands tend to expect magic for $500 or less. I think it's a good reason why CV stopped making Pentax mount. And why Pentax doesn't produce a larger line of high end optics.</p>

<p>So you want a 16mm f/1.8, what do you think it would be priced at? I'm guessing $500+, probably $600-700, I don't see them selling a lot.</p>

<p>On the flip side, they could rebrand the 28mm f/2.8 and sell it for $300 and it would sell like hotcakes.</p>

<p>I still don't see any advantage to full frame beyond people wanting to use legacy glass on it, and lets face it, everyone that really wanted a full frame camera has one. Those that don't might buy one if it became available, but they aren't switching brands for one at this point. And of course there is the issue that modern wide angles actually are redesigned to be optimized for a digital sensor -whereas digital telephotos are basically the same as their film counterparts. So I'm kinda wondering if it isn't foolish to mount an inferior lens on a (supposedly) superior sensor!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The DxoMark 'combined' rating is a bit silly, really. For example, the Panasonic LX5 (which I have) and the Olympus XZ-1 scored 41 and 34 respectively, even though they use the same sensor! <br>

Once you look at the overlapping graphs you see why: the LX5 and XZ-1 are perfectly matched except that the LX5 also goes down to ISO 80 (vs. ISO 100 of the XZ-1), and that little additional dynamic range at that lowest ISO makes the big the difference in the final numerical summary.<br>

Same thing with the K5/D7000 sensors. They score hugely because of the ISO 100 performance (which is great), but don't tell me that the score of 82 means that overall they are as good as a Nikon D3s.</p>

<p>Compared to the 'sensor on a roll' cameras most of us grew up with all DSLR's are pretty darn good. They all beat pushed Tri-X. It's good to have all the choices we have today.<br>

Me? I'll live with a K5 and DA Limiteds for a long time. Plenty 'good enough'. :-)</p>

<p>I agree with you, Les- we have pretty much evolved and arrived in the DSLR world. These cameras, including the K20D as well, have become excellent tools for obtaining very fine results. The K-5 will no doubt still be considered a very capable model for some time to come, and unique for its size and build.</p>

<p>That does not mean meaningful progress will stop altogether. Perhaps even a breakthrough- like new sensor technology that will generate only neglegible heat at any ISO, will require little or no filtration, and will be packing 50mp on aps size. The difference from aps to FF has become somewhat blurred even now, but moreso under that circumstance. If FF then packs 70mp, so what because you'll not see it. In fact, then even MF will become much less advantageous. If making prints the size of wall murals, one might walk right up, squint and say "I do believe I see a little difference in this one shot with the MF camera, over the one from the aps camera!"</p>

<p>Factors like DOF differences and lens design advantage factors will always be there, however. This is why I feel this is more enduring and important for differentiating advantages between aps and FF. It then remains how important is any advantage offered by one format over the other for the specific needs of the individual. As it stands, each format has its place of advantage and disadvantage, depending on what it will be used for. Although MF COULD sometimes be employed for sports shooting, it is not the optimum choice for that application. You will not find the press row bristling with Blads at a sports event. Plenty of FF though, as well as top notch aps. At indoor and night events, they want the best possible low noise, high-quality images, but with good, fast, wide angle and telephoto availabilty, fast AF, and high burst rate. The more tele is needed, the more top notch aps will be attractive. The more wide angle AND tele, the versatility and low noise of FF becomes attractive.</p>

<p>Your point is well made, Justin, regarding a fast 24mm equivelent lens for aps being so costly. It would evidently also present design challenges- there must be reasons why no mfr makes one. I do not think it is because there is no use for such a lens. Canikon both offer 24mm f/1.4 lenses, which are very costly at around $2K. Rather than any attempt to make a beastly equivelent for aps, they simply rely on the fact FF bodies are available for these lenses. And lens prices have gone up quite a bit in recent years. I bought my nice Sigma EX 24mm f/1.8 sometime between 1999 and 2003 for $300 new, when I only had film bodies. It is a DG, made for digital use as well as film. It soon became one of my more used lenses on my film bodies. Great for night or evening cityscapes and street scenes with archectural aspects, and also other low-light wide angle needs. I still use it a lot with digital bodies, even though its wide angle is cut to an equivelent similar to a 35mm lens. This lens is still available, but now at $550!!! Still a good price for what it is.</p>

<p>The 15mm Limited f/4 is a fine and attractive lens. But it is not the same kind of thing at all, other than the focal length. Its concept is for compactness and portability (like other Limiteds), but in a WA with fine IQ. But we're talking more than 2 stops difference here! Even one stop usually more than doubles the size and cost of a lens! Look at the difference in size, for example, between the 15mm limited and the Pentax 14mm f/2.8 for just one stop gain!! A lens of f/1.8 would be near prohibitive in terms of size and cost. Although the Pentax 15mm is pretty low in distortion (Pentax did a remarkably good job here in a small lens of this focal legth), I believe it is even lower in my 24mm. No one has been able to come up with an aps 28mm f/1.9 pancake lens either.</p>

<p>Yes, wide angle lenses become more difficult for design and cost factors with aps. Tokina makes a 12-24mm f/4 costing $500. Tokina previously made its 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5 for FF or film, at around $175 with optional hood, which is a very good lens with much lower distortion at its wide end than the 12-24mm. The previous metal body (actually 19mm) 20-35mm f3.5-4.5 II sold for about $270 with hood, and is a fine performer. The 12-24mm is considerably larger than these lenses, despite having the same filter size. The Pentax version costs about $700. I still keep my 19-35mm for film use. But aps more than makes up for this disadvantage in the smaller, lighter, longer-reaching high-quality telephoto equivelant lenses can now be offered at a lower price!! Better for carrying, better for hand-held shooting, and better IQ compared to a FF crop, which loses MP's and resolution.</p>

<p>As I said, FF bodies do offer some meaningful specific advantages for certain uses. Especially wide angle, low light. I can see the logic in a ringside boxing pro shooter choosing FF, since being in need of fast wide angle and tele in the same event. Or other low-light applications as I described above, using a WA fast prime. For myself, if I want the full 24mm WA use of my fast lens, I go to my film bodies. Unless Pentax came up with a FF body so good it would knock on the door of MF, as much as aps is doing with FF, at under $3,000- only then MIGHT I be interested. Chances are I would just keep on with my 35mm film use.</p>

<p>while i can understand justin's Pentax fanboyism, i'm not sure that gloating accomplishes anything other than starting flame wars.</p>

<p>stating that anything is the "best" is a fairly dubious claim anyway, especially when one is looking at computer-generated models, not real-world testing.</p>

<p>i'm happy that Pentax seems to be making good bodies, but the main reason you don't see a lot of pentax shooters at pro events is because of their relatively limited lens selection compared to canon or nikon. talk about their primes all you want, but they dont have anything optically comparable to the nikkor holy trinity of 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200, for example. for casual/landscape shooters, they might be 'good enough' but for pros who have invested heavily in FX bodies and pro glass, one favorable review of an APS-C body wouldnt be enough to justify a switch.</p>

<p>the main reason you don't see a lot of pentax shooters at pro events is because of their relatively limited lens selection compared to canon or nikon.<br>

Perhaps. There is a lot of 'marketing psychology' in the mix too. I have no brand loyalty but use Pentax digital because of the value for the $$$.</p>