[Anvh]

You seem to be implying that you couldn't get the improved focusing AND the better image processor. When forced to pick between them the focusing is a clear winner. However, if you are upgrading the camera (focus), why not slap the new processor in there to?

Quite simply, no 14bit RAW (maybe?) and no real benefit speed wise when shooting RAW.
Don't forget that the K5 produce files capable 64 times more colours then the K30

Prime M is a great processor but it seems to be aimed more at the JPEG shooters since it's super fast with that, maybe the prime M is a processor aimed at bridge camera, high end compacts and lower end DSLR.
The Prime II is primairly made for mid/higher segment of DSLR, Nikon also use the same processor.

[GoldenRGuy]

Agreed!!

x2! Love mine. Don't have a real problem with autofocus, now that I know what to expect and when to go Manual!

[RobG]

You seem to be implying that you couldn't get the improved focusing AND the better image processor. When forced to pick between them the focusing is a clear winner. However, if you are upgrading the camera (focus), why not slap the new processor in there to?

Because it would probably mean redesigning a considerable amount of the circuitry in the K5 to make a different CPU work in it. I haven't see the circuit boards which make up the K5 - perhaps the AF is on a different board to the CPU and is therefore easier to replace. Also, as I mentioned, replacing the CPU would probably mean rewriting the entire firmware, which is a non-trivial exercise. I don't know what budget or time frame was available for the upgrade, but I'm sure that the project team did the best they could with the means they were given. Replacing the CPU in a camera is unlikely to be as simple as replacing the CPU in a PC. Replacing the firmware certainly wouldn't be. Maybe the supply of CPUs was used up by the K30, maybe there was a supply of the existing CPU which the company wanted to use up? It's impossible to know as an outsider. It's easy to criticise when you're not the one who has to do the work within the parameters set by management. The point of this thread was - a great camera just got better!

[johnc]

is that, regardless of all the bitching and moaning, an excellent camera just got more excellent. Not only that, but this means stuff like the D-BG4 will not be abandoned soon like what happened when the K20D/DBG2 was replaced by the K-7/D-BG4. For those of us, like me, who own a K-5 it is confirmation that the model is a DSLR to be reckoned with - even the "old" K-5, even now.

Furthermore, what would you guys rather have: the demise of Pentax because of dedicating sparse resources to development of brandnew models without the market share to have some long-term income guarantee.

I say this is one hell of a smart move. Maintaining the K-5's body and innards, as well as going after those things in its design that could be improved, allows a much better use of company funds while concentrating on the "other criticism" that is heard in today's market ("Pentax doesn't have a decent lens lineup").

In the optics you see the same market-driven thinking with the 18-270 from Tamron. That kind of range always has its limitations so why waste R&D on what basically is a consumer lens? At least now its available, on less argument for Joe Consumer to not go Pentax. The real development funds went to the 560mm which most definitely has a different target population.

As to Pentax spilling users "from the top" - that certainly is an issue but as long as the brand as a whole is repositioned so that it attracts more middle -ground photographers like photography-enthusiasts, weekend-professionals and serious travellers/bloggers as well as a dedicated crowd of Pentaxians, that should not be so disastrous.

All in all we've been complaining about Pentax's marketing but people, this is what smart marketing is all about! Preserving and expanding a brand does not mean blowing it up by doing too much, too quickly. It means careful market identification and targeting your models at the fat center of the Bell-curve...

I'm happy!

I'm another relatively happy camper. What did I really want to see from Pentax? A signal that my investment in bodies, lenses and accessories was going to be preserved. And I got it. The K-5 is a great camera and the new variants are worthy successors. The only puzzling part for me is the video specs - although I never shoot video so I am not directly affected.

I do photography on a budget that is not that small, but I always aim to buy cheaply and look for value. That's what brought me to Pentax. Nightmare scenario for me (in terms of cost and hassle) is having to leave the K-mount lens collection I have amassed and try to cover the same bases in another system. While I am happy with the K5, I now don't have to worry about 'well, if I dropped it tomorrow, what would I get?'. So this makes me slightly more confident to continue to invest in my lens collection.

The new lens launches don't appeal to me so far, but they hit psychologically important perceived needs that were until now another reason for switchers or new users to discount Pentax as a system. For me - roll on new DA*s (18-70?) or (dare I say it) a range of DFA*s - I may be mad but I would drop a small fortune on a DFA* 180mm macro

Pentax don't exist in a vacuum and even discounting the big two, Sony are presenting a big challenge (my guess is that this is especially pronounced in the market of users new to DSLR). The new announcements see a renewed focus on marketing and addressing the gaps for a wide market appeal - and this has to be good news for the medium to long term even if nothing has been announced that has me reaching for my credit card!

[Richdog]

Well, to me it's clear what Pentax/Ricoh have done with the Pentax K5 MkII.

1. They are behind schedule on their premium project(s) and knew they had to release something in time for Photokina or look bad compared to the competition
2. They wanted something that could be tweaked easily and then produced with minimum cost and fuss, hence using the same body/parts as the K-5

While I think all the positive, funtastic and huggy posts like "The K5 is so perfect that all they could do was tweak it a little" are admirable in spirit, lets not kid ourselves, it is not a serious upgrade, and if you look at the situation objectively with no bias (no offence but that excludes about 75% of ths thread judging frm what I read), then it is a stop-gap solution.

The admin of this site posted recently about a full-frame camera on the way, I think this is what is behind, and that they have had some form of issues whether it be conceptual or technological, and the project will run late into next year where it would probably ideally have been this year when everyone else released their new big things (Nikon D600 etc).

Being a Pentax supporter doesn't mean having to constantly write self-placating posts in defence of Pentax, and to kid yourself that everything is hunky and dory with a lacklustre new release when it clearly isn't (the exact same kind of denial happens over at the BlackBerry forums). Sometimes you just need to be critical, analytic, and accept that things are not ideal. This new release, which uses the same technology and body as of a camera 2 years old, when its little brother the K30 was released only a short time before and is in areas technologically superior, clearly isn't ideal at this time of year when competitors are visibly doing so much more.

[newmikey]

While I think all the positive, funtastic and huggy posts...

You lost me right at the beginning so I couldn't read the rest of the hogwash. Pulleaze get a D800!

[JimDickinson]

Wow - what a lot of ways to spin a nice update of a great camera! The K-5 has many, many positive features - it is the reason that I am a Pentax shooter today. Taking a wonderful camera body and updating the few things that people don't like seems like a sensible way to move forward to me.

At some point many companies have such a great product that reinventing the wheel just does not make sense. Exhibit A - the new iPhone. Not as revolutionary as many people hoped, but when you are starting with an almost perfect product you really don't need to change things just for the sake of change.

[RobG]

Being a Pentax supporter doesn't mean having to constantly write self-placating posts in defence of Pentax, and to kid yourself that everything is hunky and dory with a lacklustre new release when it clearly isn't...

Being a Pentax supporter shouldn't consist of spending the majority of the forum bandwidth saying how bad Pentax products are. If people don't like the products, are they "Pentax supporters"? If you want to be realistic, how about acknowledging that Pentax puts out great products on a far smaller budget than Sony, Canon or Nikon? If you want to be realistic, maybe it's good to recognise that precisely because Pentax has a far more limited budget than the other manufacturers I've named, that it makes sense for Pentax to focus on their successes and where their sales are? Olympus used to make great SLRs, but focussed on compact cameras because that was a market niche where they did really well. Pentax has for some time now made really good APSC DSLRs which don't cost the earth. I don't frankly expect that Pentax will ever make a camera which is a "nikon killer" or a "canon killer". I don't expect any manufacturer to make a camera which fits everyone's wish list. Would I like to see Pentax with a bigger market share? Of course. Do I expect all the Nikon and Canon owners to throw away their lens collections to jump to Pentax? No. But I would like Pentax to continue doing what they do well - making great APSC DSLRs that don't cost the earth. Better than going broke wasting the R&D budget on a camera that won't sell enough copies to pay for the next model, or making one that requires the additional expense of a whole new range of lenses.

[Richdog]

Being a Pentax supporter shouldn't consist of spending the majority of the forum bandwidth saying how bad Pentax products are. If people don't like the products, are they "Pentax supporters"? If you want to be realistic, how about acknowledging that Pentax puts out great products on a far smaller budget than Sony, Canon or Nikon? If you want to be realistic, maybe it's good to recognise that precisely because Pentax has a far more limited budget than the other manufacturers I've named, that it makes sense for Pentax to focus on their successes and where their sales are? Olympus used to make great SLRs, but focussed on compact cameras because that was a market niche where they did really well. Pentax has for some time now made really good APSC DSLRs which don't cost the earth. I don't frankly expect that Pentax will ever make a camera which is a "nikon killer" or a "canon killer". I don't expect any manufacturer to make a camera which fits everyone's wish list. Would I like to see Pentax with a bigger market share? Of course. Do I expect all the Nikon and Canon owners to throw away their lens collections to jump to Pentax? No. But I would like Pentax to continue doing what they do well - making great APSC DSLRs that don't cost the earth. Better than going broke wasting the R&D budget on a camera that won't sell enough copies to pay for the next model, or making one that requires the additional expense of a whole new range of lenses.

Fair and well reasoned post, and you brought some angles I hadn't looked at with regards to the R&D and sales. However, I still think that Pentax had wanted to release something at the same time as the rest (unless you are suggesting that the K-5 II represents the sum total of their premium R&D over the last year or so, in which case i'd have to say that's very unlikely), and that they are still trying to remain competitive. We'll see what 2013 brings, and I hope it's something juicy!

As for the forum bandwidth comment... that's exactly what I was talking about earlier, some people are completely closed to criticism of Pentax even when justified in the eyes of many. People are not saying 'how bad the products are', they are saying that they are dissappointed in the latest release. Those are two very different things, and they have as much right to express their opinion using the forum bandwidth, as the die-hard supporters do when they post how great everything is.

There's room for everyone.

[Rickster]

This discussion reminds me of the ancient parable about the blind men describing an elephant. ;-)

Then I ran across this version ...

Six blind elephants were discussing what men were like.
After arguing they decided to find one and determine what
it was like by direct experience.
The first blind elephant felt the man and declared -
“Men are flat.”
After all the blind elephants felt the man, they agreed. ;-)

[Richdog]

And thus, the elephant lands and it appears the blind men were not so blind...

From the review:

So, what's the bottom line? Pentax promised us an AF system that works when it's dark, and they delivered one. In low light under EV 0, the K-5 II outperforms its predecessor as well as its Canon and Nikon rivals, the 7D and D7000. However, overall, the autofocus in the K-5 II is not the big upgrade that Pentax K-5 users have been waiting for. We think that the next step for Pentax is to add more focus points and implement a more powerful motor (perhaps one that is brushless) in order to make their cameras more versatile in everyday shooting conditions, and for shooting fast moving subjects. The Canon and Nikon bodies excel in these areas compared to the Pentax K-5 II.

More Pentax news at: Pentax K-5 II / IIs Review - Introduction - PentaxForums.com

So yeah... I guess we know who were the realists, and who were the eternal optimists in this thread.

[garyk]

Great thread. But if Pentax doesn't come out with something in the next year. Even six months IMO.
Pentax will be in serious trouble.
So I am pulling for them.

[newmikey]

So yeah... I guess we know who were the realists, and who were the eternal optimists in this thread.

From the review:

...the K-5 II outperforms its predecessor as well as its Canon and Nikon rivals, the 7D and D7000.

...not the big upgrade that Pentax K-5 users have been waiting for.

...more versatile in everyday shooting conditions, and for shooting fast moving subjects.

...The Canon and Nikon bodies excel in these areas compared to the Pentax K-5 II.

I do not necessarily agree with your interpretation or some of these points themselves. It may be just words but:
-The fact the review states it outperforms both its predecessor and its rivals is more than enough confirmation for me that it is, in fact, an excellent update and a good move on the side of Pentax.
-The review assumes that a large portion of K-5 users have been waiting for a "big upgrade". I consider that an unproven assumption at the very best.
-The fact the review states a couple of further improvements are needed to allow it to shoot "fast moving subjects" kind of settles it for me. I don't ever do "fast moving subjects" so why would I spend money on a camera that was specially outfitted to do just that? To show off? I would have bought into Canon or Nikon a long time ago if that were the case.
-The Canon and Nikon bodies excel in these areas, please note the emphasis. Choosing a camera will forever remain a tradeoff between different traits of different cameras from different manufacturers. I chose my camera wisely.

Now, I am NOT a Pentaxian! I could care less about the nameplate on my DSLR just as I could care less what brand of car I'm driving or which washing machine does my laundry. I would be happy with a Canon or Nikon or Olympus or .... I have never pronounced my pride in having a Pentax or having the most advanced camera in the world for that matter. [EDIT] I actually do, in my forum sig. Will have to think that one over actually after this discussion. I am a proud owner of a K-5 and a K20D, just not because they happen to be Pentaxes but because they are pretty darned neat DSLRs!

I love photography, as a hobby not a profession, and have until today found satisfaction and an almost perfect fit between my camera's technical capabilities and my slowly progressing technique as a photographer. If that situation were to change tomorrow I'd have no problem at all selling off and buying into a different brand altogether. I do not therefore see where your definition of "realist" or "eternal optimist" applies to this whole thread that started with me saying that "an excellent camera just got more excellent" - quite the opposite: the reviews bears that statement out completely.

I do not recall anyone on this thread saying "The K-5 II will do sports as well as Canon or Nikon", does anyone else? Wake up! "Pentax" is just a marketing brand of a Japanese company. It is not "worthy" of anyone's reverence, awe, sympathy or loyalty. Pentax makes things, gadgets, equipment. It does a nice job. So do others.

[kadajawi]

Hm. Sorry, but the K-5 II... oh well. Currently I'm looking to replace my old, really old Pentax, and I'm torn. Why do I get the better image quality, better video functions, faster menus etc. in the cheaper more entry level camera? Of course the K-5 has quite a bit to offer, especially in terms of ergonomics, but a proper update would have been good. I'd love to get the body of the K-5, including the silent shutter, but with the K-30 sensor and processor. Lack of a proper audio input bothers me in the K-30, as well as the missing display on top. So basically I'm not 100% convinced with either option.

I'm neither comfortable with getting a downgrade to my current camera (in terms of user it is aimed at, of course the actual performance is lightyears ahead, and there are many nice features that were added), but a camera that is already a bit outdated and beaten by its cheaper entry level sibling? For a much higher price? Also feels wrong.

[David&karen]

We too wish the K5II/s had the Prime M processor, and the focus peaking of the K30. BUT: Pentax promised a killer low light AF with none of the front focus issues of the K5(mine does not seem to ff in tungsten light), plus with the AA less design of the IIs they effectively gave us more resolution without any more noise, something that a 24mp sensor probably would not have delivered if the Nikon 3200 sensor is any indication. We think that decision on their part is brilliant. Also we know the CDAF of the K30 is faster. But we use our cameras in a way that is really rough, and the K30 would be toast with what the K5 survives(falls onto cobblestones come to mind-that was Karens K7). WE shoot in sometimes very dark situations(priest in morning prayers in cathredrals in Europe) where stealth is the number one issue. Only the Canon 5d mark II/III is quieter(1DX not tested) and the Nikon's can wake the dead. This new AF is just what we need. If I shot sports for a living I would of gotten a higher end Canon and not looked back. At least the Pentax bodies are cheap by the standards of the higher end N/C bodies. And we like APS-c because it gives us lighter smaller lenses(in general, Pentax FF lenses have almost always been smaller). YMMV as usual, but Pentax is moving ahead.

D&K