Quote: First, a little background on my photographic journey is in order to help justify and validate my review of the K-5. I started with photography about 15 years ago, while in college. Since I didn't have much spending money, I logically went with Pentax, as it was the most affordable system of the bunch. This was of course in the days of film.
>
> Throughout the years, I advanced and perfected my technique, and realized I was quite good at nature photography. Bit by bit, I expanded my collection of lenses and equipment. I only used Pentax stuff, so I had no basis to compare it with Canon or Nikon. All through this time, however, I was more than a little curious as to why all the pros in the magazines used Canon or Nikon...
>
> Fast forward to 2006. Reluctantly, I was finally accepting that I needed to make the switch to digital. Since Pentax digital cameras would work with the old film lenses, again it was a logical choice for me to stick with Pentax. I got the istDS. I can't really say too much about this camera, as it took the role of a "learning" digital camera for me. After about 2 years I felt I had outgrown the istDS--I was getting good enough that I felt I was ready to pursue contests and publications, and 6.1MP probably wasn't going to get me too far. So I decided to upgrade to the K200D.
>
> Now I was really getting very serious with my photography. I believed I was good enough to be competitive with just about anyone out there, and was comparing my pictures very critically with the best. When I would look closely at my pictures and compare them to the others, I would notice some glaring differences in quality. "Theirs" had much better quality color--more accurate, more total colors, and seamless transitions with color gradients. Whereas my Pentax pictures had a soft look to them, "theirs" had a razor-sharp look, full of intricate detail. As my dismay grew, I again couldn't help but notice one common theme with all the other good photographers: they used Canon or Nikon.
>
> Almost 2 years passed. I inherited a couple thousand dollars, and decided to use it to upgrade my photography equipment again. The K-5 had recently come out, and I spent a lot of time perusing the internet and magazines to read everything I possibly could about this camera. I read enough good things to convince myself that maybe, just maybe, Pentax had finally gotten with the game and made something competitive with the big guns. On another interesting note, I also used the money I inherited to upgrade 2 lenses--one was a Tamron and one was a Sigma. Despite being much cheaper than their Pentax counterparts, I was completely blown away by the quality of these lenses compared to what I was used to with Pentax throughout the years. I honestly did not know what "sharp" was before using non-Pentax lenses. But back to the K-5...
>
> So I was convinced that Pentax was finally ready to compete with the best, and nervously bought the K-5. I've used it in the same manner, using the same techniques, shooting the same types of scenes, as I always have. And let me tell you, from the first shoot on, I have been completely disappointed. I'm not a wealthy person, so a camera is a huge investment for me. I feel a great sadness that I had the chance (with the inheritance money) to switch systems and blew it.
>
> The K-5 is about three times the price of the K200D, and I literally notice no difference (other than the files are a lot bigger, since it's a lot more MPs). The color gradients are the same as they were with the K200D--for example, pictures of a colorful sunset will show distinct blocks of color, rather than having smooth transitions like Canons or Nikons do. I guess I expected that with triple the price and 14-bit RAW files, I should be able to notice an improvement in this regard.
>
> The sharpness of the K-5 is no different than the K200D. I have compared many photos to test this, zooming very close in Photoshop to look at intricate details. The only improvement I've seen is when I used the Sigma or Tamron lenses!
>
> Chromatic aberration on the K-5 is atrocious, much worse than the K200D or even the istDS. Again, I am using the same lenses, using the same techniques, and shooting the same types of scenes. Not only is the chromatic aberration much, much worse with the K-5, to my horror it is also much more difficult, even sometimes impossible, to fix in Photoshop.
>
> The controls are pretty similar to the older Pentax DSLRs, but I liked the older ones better. For example, until the K-5 you could delete all the photos in memory by pressing the "trash" key twice. With the K-5, deleting all the photos is only possible by going through a bunch of menus. Why!?! I'm sorry, but it really is not possible to accidently delete all the photos by using the old system--you had to press the "trash" button twice, then scroll down to confirm, then press "enter." It was simple but safe--why would you make someone go through a bunch of stupid menus to complete a very common task?
>
> The K-5 has a separate e-dial for shutter and aperture. Again, a poor design. With the method from their older DSLRs, I could quickly change shutter and aperture (using one dial) without even taking my eye off the viewfinder--very helpful for making quick changes in the heat of the moment. You CAN customize some buttons (mainly the ones nobody ever uses), but of course not these! But, oh yes, they have the Green Mode like on their point-and-shoots...if you completely understand what exactly this is for, or actually USE it, you're one step above me!
>
> I regret this purchase, and on a bigger scale, regret staying with Pentax. You have to always keep in mind that there is a reason why the pros use Canon or Nikon: because they are simply better. Yes, they are a little more expensive (but not too much--in fact, the K-5 is actually more expensive than some of the other manufacturer's counterparts), but you definitely get what you pay for. And despite maybe having a little higher average cost per camera, if you follow the camera market you have probably noticed that Pentax is always a couple generations behind, technoloy-wise, than the others. When Pentax was finally making 10MP cameras, the others were making 12 & 14MP. Now that Pentax is making 16MP, the others are making 18MP and full-frames.
>
> It has taken me 15 years to learn what I wondered about from very early on (which camera system to go with). I have always given Pentax the benefit of the doubt, and wanted so badly to believe in their products (I even bought a Pentax hat to proudly wear for all to see). But I am too passionate about my photography to settle for inferior products, when there is much better stuff out there. I will unfortunately be stuck with Pentax for a couple more years until I can save enough to switch to Canon or Nikon--but when that day comes, I'll never look back.