Updated (May 2012): Compare the Canon Rebel T4i vs Pentax K-5

Pentax K-5 vs Canon Rebel T4i

Winner
Pentax K-5

92

Canon Rebel T4i

59

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Pentax K-5

Low noise at high ISO
Low light performance
1,162 ISO
Great image quality
Overall image quality
82.0
Great color depth
Color depth
23.7 bits
Wide dynamic range
Dynamic range
14.1 EV
 

Reasons to buy the Canon Rebel T4i

Screen resolution
High resolution screen
1,040k dots
Touch screen
Touch screen
Fewer buttons
Supports 24p
24p movies
For that film look
Screen flips out
Flip-out screen
Great for movies

galleries

Explore our gallery of 49 sample photos taken by the Canon Rebel T4i.
Explore our gallery of 4 sample photos taken by the Pentax K-5.

competitors

Pentax K-5 Competitors

Pentax K-3

Pentax K-3

Entry-level DSLR

$486 body only

$400 with 18-55mm lens

Supports 24p Supports 24p
Autofocus Video autofocus
Dynamic range Less dynamic range
Pentax K-50

Pentax K-50

Entry-level DSLR

$307 body only

$306 with 18-55mm lens

Supports 24p Supports 24p
Autofocus Video autofocus
External mic jack Lacks an external mic jack
Pentax K-5 II

Pentax K-5 II

Entry-level DSLR

$340 body only

$406 with 18-55mm lens

Low light performance Lower noise at high ISO
Battery life Longer battery life
Shutter lag Much more shutter lag

Canon Rebel T4i Competitors

Canon Rebel T5i

Canon Rebel T5i

Entry-level DSLR

$264 - $649 body only

$332 - $599 with 18-55mm lens

Lowest price Cheaper
Shutter lag Slightly less shutter lag
Low light performance Slightly more noise at high ISO
Canon Rebel T3i

Canon Rebel T3i

Entry-level DSLR

$400 body only

$759 with 18-55mm lens

Color depth Better color depth
Dynamic range More dynamic range
HDR Lacks in-camera HDR
Canon EOS Rebel T5

Canon EOS Rebel T5

Entry-level DSLR

$310 body only

$277 - $399 with 18-55mm lens

Color depth Better color depth
Dynamic range More dynamic range
Screen resolution Much lower resolution screen

discussion

Pentax K-5
K-5
Pentax

Report a correction
Canon Rebel T4i
Rebel T4i
Canon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments