Is K5 the "real deal" ?

les3547 · 01-05-2011, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by FullertonImages

I think is the scenarios you put forth, there wouldn't be a huge gain. I think I actually prefer the K-7 ISO 100 to the K-5 ISO 100, except for instances where DR is a concern. I think the K-7 has nicer colors and appears to be slightly sharper. But for anything where DR or shadow detail, or for anything over ISO 400, the K-5 is the clear and present winner.

Thanks for the information.

PhilippeG · 01-05-2011, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by FullertonImages

(…) I think the K-7 has nicer colors and appears to be slightly sharper at the lower ISOs. (…)

Ah I had a hard time getting colors I liked when I started using the K-7. There was a slight magenta cast and I didn't quite like the reds. But it may be a matter of sample variation. Or because I was used to the slightly warmer tones from the K-100 D.

So I used an IT8 chart to create a more neutral default profile and used it at import in Lightroom. Problem solved.

The colors I get straight from the K-5 RAW files seem nicer to me, more true to reality.

**Douglas_of_Sweden** · 01-05-2011, 05:31 PM

K-5 is certainly the best Pentax DSLR I ever used. Having both K-7 and K-5 is a bit like changing between two brands of film, which can be usefull.
It's not the best Pentax SLR ever, I'll still consider the LX for that position.

Progress from K20D to K-7 was good, espacially in ergonomics, user interface and build quality. K-5 is a big leap forward from that keeping everything that was good with the K-7.

les3547 · 01-05-2011, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by Douglas_of_Sweden

K-5 is certainly the best Pentax DSLR I ever used. Having both K-7 and K-5 is a bit like changing between two brands of film, which can be usefull.
It's not the best Pentax SLR ever, I'll still consider the LX for that position.

Progress from K20D to K-7 was good, espacially in ergonomics, user interface and build quality. K-5 is a big leap forward from that keeping everything that was good with the K-7.

I wasn't sure if your response was at all to the parameters I proposed, where I "use only manual focus, and mostly shoot with a tripod at 100 ISO, some at 400 or under, never over 800," but if not, would you still say the K-5 was a big leap forward shooting strictly that way?

Spotmatic · 03-28-2011, 04:40 AM

Originally posted by les3547

I wasn't sure if your response was at all to the parameters I proposed, where I "use only manual focus, and mostly shoot with a tripod at 100 ISO, some at 400 or under, never over 800," but if not, would you still say the K-5 was a big leap forward shooting strictly that way?

I am on the same page as you....almost. I have a K7 and use DA Limiteds. Action shots and video are not important to me. I would upgrade to the K5 but I am not sure if I would 'see' a big difference.

jolepp · 03-28-2011, 05:07 AM

Originally posted by les3547

I wasn't sure if your response was at all to the parameters I proposed, where I "use only manual focus, and mostly shoot with a tripod at 100 ISO, some at 400 or under, never over 800," but if not, would you still say the K-5 was a big leap forward shooting strictly that way?

It sounds like you might wait for the next offering and then either get that if there is compelling improvement or a K-5 for a lower price (possibly with the low light AF issue definitely fixed, as in "We found a saboteur and promoted him as punishment and to avoid further damage"

)

**Ash** · 03-28-2011, 05:18 AM

Originally posted by les3547

I wasn't sure if your response was at all to the parameters I proposed, where I "use only manual focus, and mostly shoot with a tripod at 100 ISO, some at 400 or under, never over 800," but if not, would you still say the K-5 was a big leap forward shooting strictly that way?

Les, those constraints make me think film SLRs would be best for you, but if you were thinking more in the lines of a dSLR, then to me the K10D or even *ist D would suffice just beautifully in those settings. They have such rich renditions at ISO 100-200 that I'd consider them even above the K20D and K-7. The K-5 then came along with its revamped sensor and got my attention again, and with tweaked colours and low ISO performance, particularly in long exposures. So the K-5 is certainly Pentax's pride and well worth its price for the performance it offers - not the same as value for money, but at low ISOs it's just excellent.

**Fontan** · 03-28-2011, 06:59 AM

Originally posted by Douglas_of_Sweden

K-5 is certainly the best Pentax DSLR I ever used. Having both K-7 and K-5 is a bit like changing between two brands of film, which can be usefull.
It's not the best Pentax SLR ever, I'll still consider the LX for that position.

Progress from K20D to K-7 was good, espacially in ergonomics, user interface and build quality. K-5 is a big leap forward from that keeping everything that was good with the K-7.

This is the best statement I have read in a while. I would add that the leap from K-7 to K-5 was primarily in IQ. THis becomes less of an issue if one lives in low ISO world.

But I do think that going back between K7 and K5 is like switching films. Exactly. Precisely.

Rupert · 03-28-2011, 08:01 AM

I never owned the K7, my interest was in good high ISO and the K7 did not deliver better than my K20D.
From my K10D/K20D to the K5 is a Giant Leap...not just a small stepping stone. No reasonable able minded person could not experience the difference within a few minutes. I have a Bigma that loves to hunt like a Coon Hound....grinds away for minutes trying to lock focus on my K20D...now it snaps right on focus and locks quickly in all but the dimmest of light. That alone is worth the upgrade to me.....add in a few dozen other great features, and you have the K5, a fantastic camera.....not just a "new model".
Best Regards!
Shot this with the Bigma just a few minutes ago.....nothing special here,but it locked focus instantly, where my K20D would have never locked in time for the shot. Squirrels move around quickly....

Attachment 87103

robgo2 · 03-28-2011, 10:02 AM

Originally posted by Ash

Les, those constraints make me think film SLRs would be best for you, but if you were thinking more in the lines of a dSLR, then to me the K10D or even *ist D would suffice just beautifully in those settings. They have such rich renditions at ISO 100-200 that I'd consider them even above the K20D and K-7. The K-5 then came along with its revamped sensor and got my attention again, and with tweaked colours and low ISO performance, particularly in long exposures. So the K-5 is certainly Pentax's pride and well worth its price for the performance it offers - not the same as value for money, but at low ISOs it's just excellent.

Did you say film?! The mere thought of scanning dozens or hundreds of frames sends shivers down my spine. In my film shooting days, I got many wonderful images, but I must admit that the quality even from today's entry level digital SLRs is better, IMO. To match it with film, you would have to shoot MF.

From what I gather, the Sony sensor in the K-5 is a quantum leap better than the Samsung sensor in the K-7 and the K20D in terms of DR and high ISO noise levels. The low light FF issues may or may not have been resolved by the latest firmware, but, honestly, most people don't shoot in the dark, so the significance of it depends on one's shooting style and needs.

Rob

philbaum · 03-28-2011, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by PhilippeG

Ah I had a hard time getting colors I liked when I started using the K-7. There was a slight magenta cast and I didn't quite like the reds. But it may be a matter of sample variation. Or because I was used to the slightly warmer tones from the K-100 D.

So I used an IT8 chart to create a more neutral default profile and used it at import in Lightroom. Problem solved.

The colors I get straight from the K-5 RAW files seem nicer to me, more true to reality.

Ditto to Philippe's comments, The colors seem better to me somehow, right from the camera. With the modern PP software, i use Lightroom, one had all this capability to adjust the photos. But when you did that with the K20 files, one had to be very discrete not to pull up too much noise or magenta cast. Its night and day difference with the K5, the files can be toned up from really unexposed pictures to a remarkable degree. The early magenta blush of the K20 is gone. Thats what i was hoping for wtih the K5 and it came true.

I've only been in my camera 3 days now, still fumbling around a bit since some of the controls are context sensitive, but i think the K20's were a bit simpler to use. But of course the K20 doesn't have the headroom of K5's high iso capability. And no, i'm not giving up my K5 -

Quiet shutter is really, really, really nice.

03-28-2011, 08:01 AM	#39
Rupert Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 25,123	I never owned the K7, my interest was in good high ISO and the K7 did not deliver better than my K20D. From my K10D/K20D to the K5 is a Giant Leap...not just a small stepping stone. No reasonable able minded person could not experience the difference within a few minutes. I have a Bigma that loves to hunt like a Coon Hound....grinds away for minutes trying to lock focus on my K20D...now it snaps right on focus and locks quickly in all but the dimmest of light. That alone is worth the upgrade to me.....add in a few dozen other great features, and you have the K5, a fantastic camera.....not just a "new model". Best Regards! Shot this with the Bigma just a few minutes ago.....nothing special here,but it locked focus instantly, where my K20D would have never locked in time for the shot. Squirrels move around quickly.... Attachment 87103 Last edited by Rupert; 07-29-2015 at 07:00 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Real photos (not test shots) showing the "string of pearls" stains?	johnmflores	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	69	12-12-2010 03:24 PM
"Real Life" Rusty Farm Stuff - bokeh content	mikeSF	Post Your Photos!	17	04-21-2009 10:43 AM
"Real-life stuff" — with birds! HAHA!	gawan	Post Your Photos!	24	04-20-2009 06:39 AM
Buying First "Real" Camera and Need Opinion On ZX-5 w/Accesories	brandontowey	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	2	02-15-2009 07:13 AM
The "real" values for the FA 77mm f/1.8 Ltd. Just out of curiosity.	bc_the_path	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	06-02-2008 05:34 PM

01-05-2011, 12:16 PM	#31
les3547 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Sebastopol, California Photos: Albums Posts: 2,020	Originally posted by FullertonImages I think is the scenarios you put forth, there wouldn't be a huge gain. I think I actually prefer the K-7 ISO 100 to the K-5 ISO 100, except for instances where DR is a concern. I think the K-7 has nicer colors and appears to be slightly sharper. But for anything where DR or shadow detail, or for anything over ISO 400, the K-5 is the clear and present winner. Thanks for the information.

01-05-2011, 04:14 PM	#32
PhilippeG Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Paris, France Photos: Gallery Posts: 345	Originally posted by FullertonImages (…) I think the K-7 has nicer colors and appears to be slightly sharper at the lower ISOs. (…) Ah I had a hard time getting colors I liked when I started using the K-7. There was a slight magenta cast and I didn't quite like the reds. But it may be a matter of sample variation. Or because I was used to the slightly warmer tones from the K-100 D. So I used an IT8 chart to create a more neutral default profile and used it at import in Lightroom. Problem solved. The colors I get straight from the K-5 RAW files seem nicer to me, more true to reality.

01-05-2011, 05:31 PM	#33
Douglas_of_Sweden Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Stockholm Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,374	K-5 is certainly the best Pentax DSLR I ever used. Having both K-7 and K-5 is a bit like changing between two brands of film, which can be usefull. It's not the best Pentax SLR ever, I'll still consider the LX for that position. Progress from K20D to K-7 was good, espacially in ergonomics, user interface and build quality. K-5 is a big leap forward from that keeping everything that was good with the K-7.

01-05-2011, 06:02 PM	#34
les3547 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Sebastopol, California Photos: Albums Posts: 2,020	Originally posted by Douglas_of_Sweden K-5 is certainly the best Pentax DSLR I ever used. Having both K-7 and K-5 is a bit like changing between two brands of film, which can be usefull. It's not the best Pentax SLR ever, I'll still consider the LX for that position. Progress from K20D to K-7 was good, espacially in ergonomics, user interface and build quality. K-5 is a big leap forward from that keeping everything that was good with the K-7. I wasn't sure if your response was at all to the parameters I proposed, where I "use only manual focus, and mostly shoot with a tripod at 100 ISO, some at 400 or under, never over 800," but if not, would you still say the K-5 was a big leap forward shooting strictly that way?

03-28-2011, 04:40 AM	#35
Spotmatic Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Ft. Myers Florida Posts: 169	Originally posted by les3547 I wasn't sure if your response was at all to the parameters I proposed, where I "use only manual focus, and mostly shoot with a tripod at 100 ISO, some at 400 or under, never over 800," but if not, would you still say the K-5 was a big leap forward shooting strictly that way? I am on the same page as you....almost. I have a K7 and use DA Limiteds. Action shots and video are not important to me. I would upgrade to the K5 but I am not sure if I would 'see' a big difference.

03-28-2011, 05:07 AM	#36
jolepp Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Finland Photos: Albums Posts: 3,196	Originally posted by les3547 I wasn't sure if your response was at all to the parameters I proposed, where I "use only manual focus, and mostly shoot with a tripod at 100 ISO, some at 400 or under, never over 800," but if not, would you still say the K-5 was a big leap forward shooting strictly that way? It sounds like you might wait for the next offering and then either get that if there is compelling improvement or a K-5 for a lower price (possibly with the low light AF issue definitely fixed, as in "We found a saboteur and promoted him as punishment and to avoid further damage" )

03-28-2011, 05:18 AM	#37
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Originally posted by les3547 I wasn't sure if your response was at all to the parameters I proposed, where I "use only manual focus, and mostly shoot with a tripod at 100 ISO, some at 400 or under, never over 800," but if not, would you still say the K-5 was a big leap forward shooting strictly that way? Les, those constraints make me think film SLRs would be best for you, but if you were thinking more in the lines of a dSLR, then to me the K10D or even *ist D would suffice just beautifully in those settings. They have such rich renditions at ISO 100-200 that I'd consider them even above the K20D and K-7. The K-5 then came along with its revamped sensor and got my attention again, and with tweaked colours and low ISO performance, particularly in long exposures. So the K-5 is certainly Pentax's pride and well worth its price for the performance it offers - not the same as value for money, but at low ISOs it's just excellent.

03-28-2011, 06:59 AM	#38
Fontan Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: 5th floor Posts: 1,610	Originally posted by Douglas_of_Sweden K-5 is certainly the best Pentax DSLR I ever used. Having both K-7 and K-5 is a bit like changing between two brands of film, which can be usefull. It's not the best Pentax SLR ever, I'll still consider the LX for that position. Progress from K20D to K-7 was good, espacially in ergonomics, user interface and build quality. K-5 is a big leap forward from that keeping everything that was good with the K-7. This is the best statement I have read in a while. I would add that the leap from K-7 to K-5 was primarily in IQ. THis becomes less of an issue if one lives in low ISO world. But I do think that going back between K7 and K5 is like switching films. Exactly. Precisely.

03-28-2011, 10:02 AM	#40
robgo2 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: New Mexico Photos: Albums Posts: 1,125	Originally posted by Ash Les, those constraints make me think film SLRs would be best for you, but if you were thinking more in the lines of a dSLR, then to me the K10D or even *ist D would suffice just beautifully in those settings. They have such rich renditions at ISO 100-200 that I'd consider them even above the K20D and K-7. The K-5 then came along with its revamped sensor and got my attention again, and with tweaked colours and low ISO performance, particularly in long exposures. So the K-5 is certainly Pentax's pride and well worth its price for the performance it offers - not the same as value for money, but at low ISOs it's just excellent. Did you say film?! The mere thought of scanning dozens or hundreds of frames sends shivers down my spine. In my film shooting days, I got many wonderful images, but I must admit that the quality even from today's entry level digital SLRs is better, IMO. To match it with film, you would have to shoot MF. From what I gather, the Sony sensor in the K-5 is a quantum leap better than the Samsung sensor in the K-7 and the K20D in terms of DR and high ISO noise levels. The low light FF issues may or may not have been resolved by the latest firmware, but, honestly, most people don't shoot in the dark, so the significance of it depends on one's shooting style and needs. Rob

03-28-2011, 11:22 AM	#41
philbaum Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA Posts: 3,659	Originally posted by PhilippeG Ah I had a hard time getting colors I liked when I started using the K-7. There was a slight magenta cast and I didn't quite like the reds. But it may be a matter of sample variation. Or because I was used to the slightly warmer tones from the K-100 D. So I used an IT8 chart to create a more neutral default profile and used it at import in Lightroom. Problem solved. The colors I get straight from the K-5 RAW files seem nicer to me, more true to reality. Ditto to Philippe's comments, The colors seem better to me somehow, right from the camera. With the modern PP software, i use Lightroom, one had all this capability to adjust the photos. But when you did that with the K20 files, one had to be very discrete not to pull up too much noise or magenta cast. Its night and day difference with the K5, the files can be toned up from really unexposed pictures to a remarkable degree. The early magenta blush of the K20 is gone. Thats what i was hoping for wtih the K5 and it came true. I've only been in my camera 3 days now, still fumbling around a bit since some of the controls are context sensitive, but i think the K20's were a bit simpler to use. But of course the K20 doesn't have the headroom of K5's high iso capability. And no, i'm not giving up my K5 - Quiet shutter is really, really, really nice.