[alexeyga]

I was just looking at the photos of the Pentax KR group in Flickr and then looked at photos in the K5 group.....KR looks ordinary wheras the K5 gives the wow effect. Low light is super ! Just general impressions.

You should probably keep in mind the demography of these users... Most K-r owners are total noobs who are just happy to be able to take a picture with their shiny new toy... Most K-5 users on the other hand are experienced folks who have a slightly better idea about what they are doing...

For the sake of things, give both these cameras to somebody who does it for living, and it won't matter which lens or camera this person will use, the outcome will be essentially the same...

No f/1.4 lens in the world would change the fact that somebody should not do photography to begin with... it's just not his/her thing... fishing perhaps is...

[AGWoodard]

No f/1.4 lens in the world would change the fact that somebody should not do photography to begin with... it's just not his/her thing... fishing perhaps is...

Your post made some sense up until that line, but then, it because rude and offensive. What a terrible thing to say to any new photographer.

None of us are "born" photographers. We all see in 3D, and have to learn to see in 2 D to make wonderful photographs. The key is, we have to learn.

Photography, exposure, composition, technique, the art of seeing, can all be taught.

I wonder what Cartier Brennson's or Ansel Adams, or even YOUR first photographs looked like? My bet is, they were not gallery material.

My first photographs were of the Picasso the day it was unveiled in Chicago some 40 plus years ago. I still have them, old black and whites shot on a Brownie. Now, 40 years later, I'm still learning, and I expect to continue learning until the day I die.

[alexeyga]

Your post made some sense up until that line, but then, it because rude and offensive. What a terrible thing to say to any new photographer.

None of us are "born" photographers. We all see in 3D, and have to learn to see in 2 D to make wonderful photographs. The key is, we have to learn.

Photography, exposure, composition, technique, the art of seeing, can all be taught.

I wonder what Cartier Brennson's or Ansel Adams, or even YOUR first photographs looked like? My bet is, they were not gallery material.

My first photographs were of the Picasso the day it was unveiled in Chicago some 40 plus years ago. I still have them, old black and whites shot on a Brownie. Now, 40 years later, I'm still learning, and I expect to continue learning until the day I die.

Perhaps you're right... and I'm sorry for speaking out too "globally", some people do tend to take everything personally....

but what I find truly offensive is the idea that one cannot take decent pictures without a 2.8 lens and a 1500$ camera... that was the only point of my last phrase...

[AGWoodard]

but what I find truly offensive is the idea that one cannot take decent pictures without a 2.8 lens and a 1500$ camera

Bravo! I'm right there with you on that one!

[Christine Tham]

My thoughts after attending a Pentax workshop on Sun where I had the chance to play with a lot of different lenses and different bodies.

I own a K-5, and I can confirm it is a great body - I just love it and have no problems with it. The focusing is so accurate in all situations (yes, even in low yellowish light!) that I don't know how I managed to survive all these years on my K10D :-)

But ... I played with a K-r on Sun and it is also a great body. It doesn't feel like a cheap camera at all - it feels really solid and reassuring and the shutter action is smooth with a nice clicky sound. The Pentax rep at the workshop said it was his favourite camera - it's what he prefer to use most of the time.

I think on both K-5 and K-r you will be able to take stunning photos on any lens.

Now, about the lens. Pentax kit lenses are actually not bad - I've outgrown them now but I was using kit lenses for a long long time and took many photos that I cherish. A few Pentaxians at the workshop told me they just can't bear to part with their 16-45 kit lens because it's so good.

And the new 18-135mm WR I tried is a great lens. I took a few snaps on it and the image quality was good. It's not the fastest lens in the world, but I generally stop down a little when I take photos so it's very usable.

Now, my collection is currently mostly DA and FA Ltd so yes I agree those lenses are really special and once I got used to them I had to give away all my kit lenses.

At the end of the day I am not going to steer you in one direction over the other - just saying that no matter what decision you make I think you will be very pleased with the results, and you can always upgrade later - that's what I did - I built my collection piece by piece over many years, and I enjoyed every piece of equipment that I bought.

[fototix]

So what would you do then if your converting over to Pentax:

1) KR + F2.4 35mm + 16-45 F2.4 for $1100

2) K5 + 18-55 WR kit lens @ $1500

Assume youve spent your piggy bank for the next year

[Allison]

I would go with the K5. Of course, it does depend on your experience level, but personally, I wouldn't want to buy a camera that I was afraid I would grow out of quickly. The Kr is a great camera, but if you think that at some point you might want to extra features that the K5 offers, you should just go for that camera now.

The other thing to keep in mind is the great marketplace available on the forums. When I first made the digital switch I had some great legacy glass, but I couldn't afford any DA* glass at the time. I have purchased some great lenses from the marketplace (my 50-135, 60-250, 12-24, and my 50 1.4) and all but one was used. The deals were good and you can always sell the kit lens when you are ready to upgrade.

[einstrigger]

I was just looking at the photos of the Pentax KR group in Flickr and then looked at photos in the K5 group.....KR looks ordinary wheras the K5 gives the wow effect. Low light is super ! Just general impressions.

This is not knowing the details of the lens used (is their a way in Flickr?)...

Only if the author has allowed it. Once you click on an image you should notice on the right hand side of the page something like:

"This photo was taken on October 28, 2010 using a Pentax K-x."

The camera model, in this case the Pentax K-x, is typically a hyperlink. When you click on said hyperlink, it should show the exif data including the lens. Again, only if the author allows it in their settings.

Anyhow, I've used the K-x, K-r, and K-5. Loved, loved, the K-5, but was returned due to sensor stains. The K-x and K-r are no slouch either, especially when paired with good lenses. I sold my K-x not because I out grew it, but mainly because I got lazy. I missed having AF illuminated points, assist light, etc... But the image quality from either are all excellent. Oh, last note, the K-r sampling on Flickr isn't all that great, namely because of the fewer users, but I also suspect the more experienced folk went to the K-5.

[RobG]

Now, about the lens. Pentax kit lenses are actually not bad - I've outgrown them now but I was using kit lenses for a long long time and took many photos that I cherish. A few Pentaxians at the workshop told me they just can't bear to part with their 16-45 kit lens because it's so good.

I just wanted to mention a caveat here - in Australia at least, some Pentax bodies have been sold with Sigma kit lenses not Pentax. The Sigma kit lens I got with my K200 was awful - until I got the DA 16-45 I was wondering why the sharpness of the K200 was so poor. The K200 was fine - the Sigma lens was not. On the other hand I won't generalise about Sigma - other lenses by the same manufacturer may be fine. I have an older Sigma macro zoom which is not bad, for example.
I've been so glued to the DA 16-45 I haven't tried the WR Pentax zoom that came with the K7!

[Class A]

On the other hand I won't generalise about Sigma - other lenses by the same manufacturer may be fine.

The cheap Sigma lenses of the past are known to be pretty bad.

Most Sigma EX lenses are great to excellent.

Regarding the OP: You already have received a lot of good advice. I'd like to add the following: Ask yourself whether you will be able to spend further money on lenses further down the line.

If so, I'd get the K-5 since it is the better long-term investment compared to the K-r.

If not, get the K-r and the best lens(es) you can afford. The lenses make the picture and the K-r is more than sufficient to capture the magic of some lenses. The kit lens will not give you the images you are after. As competent as it may be for a lot of shots, it doesn't have the shallow DOF and rendering magic of the lenses which images probably impressed you the most.