[wltsang]

I've recently upgraded to the 5 iis and I did it for one reason, to support development of the next Pentax SLR. The difference of the two cameras I'm listing is minimal with one exception, auto focus in low light is much improved. I don't think this is a very big deal because when I say low light, I mean 'LOW' ...Ergo, in situations where I'm at ISO 3200 and F/ 1.4. I can turn out the lights and take pictures in near total darkness now without having to hunt for focus. This comes in handy when the kids are blowing out candles (but rarely any other situations)... All in all it is not worth 550 dollars more than the K-5, but if that money helps keep pentax moving forward, than I am all for it.

Any one else have an oppinion on value vs. performance?

[audiobomber]

Could you test for any difference in accuracy under tungsten (incandescent) lights? Pentax claims an improvement.

Also the K-5 II's have an f2.8 sensitive center point.

[JohnBee]

I'll always feel camera's are overpriced regardless but that's just me.
My wife and I purchased our K-5's at/or around the $1800.00 mark. Which was the penalty for buying within the first 6 months of the camera's market introduction. However, I've always found the 1200 mark to be descent for an up to date DSLR.

[sweetpapa]

I bought the K-5 2 months after it came out for $1400.

I haven't regretted that purchase as it's enabled me to capture 2 years of wonderful memories that I wouldn't have been able to get with my old K-10D.

I would agree that upgrading from a K-5 to K-5iis would not be good value, for me, but well worth it if the upgrade was from something older than a K-5.

[wltsang]

I see where Dave on digital imaging review has listed the k5 as his pentax pic over the k-ii and k-iis I think value was his deciding factor. I'd have to agree that it's the best value by far (especially if they come out with a k3 in the next 18 months).

I'd agree about upgrading to any of the k5's from an older DSLR as the k5 has so much to offer, but if you do not do a lot of very low light shooting than the price of the k5-ii is a lot. I relay like the way dim light isolates the subject; but that is a stylistic choice and already have all the lenses I want so the money was easy to part with.

Look at it this way. You could get a k-5 with a FA 77 1.9 (gently used) for the price of a bare k-5-iis. I think if they threw in a rebate $150-200 (perhaps good toward any accessory purchase) then they'd be at the sweet spot in the market.

[wltsang]

Could you test for any difference in accuracy under tungsten (incandescent) lights? Pentax claims an improvement.

Also the K-5 II's have an f2.8 sensitive center point.

I'm taking finals this week but I should get a chance around the christmas tree to see how things look next week

[Adam]

I see where Dave on digital imaging review has listed the k5 as his pentax pic over the k-ii and k-iis I think value was his deciding factor. I'd have to agree that it's the best value by far (especially if they come out with a k3 in the next 18 months).

I'd agree about upgrading to any of the k5's from an older DSLR as the k5 has so much to offer, but if you do not do a lot of very low light shooting than the price of the k5-ii is a lot. I relay like the way dim light isolates the subject; but that is a stylistic choice and already have all the lenses I want so the money was easy to part with.

Look at it this way. You could get a k-5 with a FA 77 1.9 (gently used) for the price of a bare k-5-iis. I think if they threw in a rebate $150-200 (perhaps good toward any accessory purchase) then they'd be at the sweet spot in the market.

You're right- the K-5 has turned into a steal at its current price. I've asked Adorama to see if they can't do any rebates on the FA 77mm...in the mean time they've dropped the K-5's price to just $749!

Pentax K5 K-5 Digital SLR Camera Body, Black 14748

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

[sts95]

I had a K-30 for a few weeks and after consistently having soft pictures realized through testing that I had FF issues. I compensated through AF micro adjustment, but all my lenses were are the far end of the adjustment which pointed me to the camera. I returned it and just ordered a K-5. I'm aware of the AF issues regarding decisiveness of focus and tungsten low light complaints, so as I write this, I sit here and ponder if I should bite the bullet and go the extra $$ for a K-5 ii. Are there serious enough issues with the K-5 that would make me question my investment? Beyond AF, what about the other improvements in the K-5 ii that are worth the extra money?

[David&karen]

We shoot with both the K5 and K5IIs. I would pick the II/s over the plain K5 any day of the year at any price. It is a much more refined camera. The AF locks on accurately in any light(and I mean any: we shoot churches in mixed bright to dim lighting that would make you cringe) that the K5 just can't. The IIs produces pics that are the equal of the Nikon D3X I used to use. When Karen shoots the K5 she says that she has to be extra vigilant to re-check the focus, with with the IIs it's pretty much fire and forget(except high speed sports). I would not buy the plain K5 over the II, even when you consider that we both like to MF as we used rangefinder leicas before we went digital(and I shoot mostly with primes). BTW, the Moire issue is way overblown. I used Digital medium format and Leica m8 and m9's and none of those had AA filters and still did weddings with super results. Did it for years. Ymmv,

David

[David&karen]

Btw, the resolution of the IIs and the screen on it are nice improvements.

[frank]

I had a K-30 for a few weeks and after consistently having soft pictures realized through testing that I had FF issues. I compensated through AF micro adjustment, but all my lenses were are the far end of the adjustment which pointed me to the camera. I returned it and just ordered a K-5. I'm aware of the AF issues regarding decisiveness of focus and tungsten low light complaints, so as I write this, I sit here and ponder if I should bite the bullet and go the extra $$ for a K-5 ii. Are there serious enough issues with the K-5 that would make me question my investment? Beyond AF, what about the other improvements in the K-5 ii that are worth the extra money?

I have to tell you that you might be disappointed w K5's AF too if you are not happy w K30 results. Should've gone w a K5II/K5IIs and be done w it. It's more expensive, but well worth the difference IMO.

[creampuff]

I have to tell you that you might be disappointed w K5's AF too if you are not happy w K30 results. Should've gone w a K5II/K5IIs and be done w it. It's more expensive, but well worth the difference IMO.

+1 to what Frank has said.
I will never go back to a K-5 because the AF performance of the K-5IIs is definitely so much improved. K-30 beats the K-5 in AF accuracy while the new K-5II and K-5IIs is better still.

[cpho]

Hmm, but is the low light focus really that much better to fork out an extra couple hundred $$?
I mean, like wltsang said, there wouldnt be much where the lower light AF is a necessity. I think I read on a post somewhere on these forums that, with the AF Assist Light, the k-5 and k-5 ii are quite similar for low light performance.
I can appreciate the scenarios for requiring the low light AF but, for more $$, I think getting the k-5 and some nice glass would be better if one didnt specifically need the low light AF

[Adam]

Hmm, but is the low light focus really that much better to fork out an extra couple hundred $$?
I mean, like wltsang said, there wouldnt be much where the lower light AF is a necessity. I think I read on a post somewhere on these forums that, with the AF Assist Light, the k-5 and k-5 ii are quite similar for low light performance.
I can appreciate the scenarios for requiring the low light AF but, for more $$, I think getting the k-5 and some nice glass would be better if one didnt specifically need the low light AF

I'd say go for the K-5 + some nicer glass instead. With the AF assist light you'll hardly be able tell the two cameras apart.

[SlamDesiAK]

We shoot with both the K5 and K5IIs. I would pick the II/s over the plain K5 any day of the year at any price. It is a much more refined camera. The AF locks on accurately in any light(and I mean any: we shoot churches in mixed bright to dim lighting that would make you cringe) that the K5 just can't. The IIs produces pics that are the equal of the Nikon D3X I used to use. When Karen shoots the K5 she says that she has to be extra vigilant to re-check the focus, with with the IIs it's pretty much fire and forget(except high speed sports). I would not buy the plain K5 over the II, even when you consider that we both like to MF as we used rangefinder leicas before we went digital(and I shoot mostly with primes). BTW, the Moire issue is way overblown. I used Digital medium format and Leica m8 and m9's and none of those had AA filters and still did weddings with super results. Did it for years. Ymmv,

David

Dave & Karen... your comments are making my decision to buy the K-5IIs easier. After reading every review and user comments, I've been banging my head against the wall trying to make a decision between the II and the IIs. Being an avid hiker in Alaska, I want the WR features and, was thinking of buying the 18-135 WR lens, too. But, that would probably be a waste of money with a body like the IIs. Or would it? Being a graphic artist, post-processing is something I've always done to my photos so, when JohnBee mentions that judicious sharpening can bring the K-5II into the same ballpark as the IIs, it starts me thinking all over again. I value your opinions. I'm all ears.