First time Pentax buyer

Photogazr · 06-13-2013, 11:12 PM

I am looking at buying my first Pentax camera. I am not sure if I should buy the K-5 II or IIs. I've been reading these forums and it seems like the IIs is the most popular. I really can't seem to find a lot on the II. I am not an advanced level, more intermediate. I sold my d7000 and lenses and moved to OM-D on a friend's advise, but it was not easy to capture my kids karate/swimming/ basketball shots. I think a DSLR works better for those situations. I also want to use it for travel and portraits. I almost bought the d7000 again but thought I will look at others as I am not invested in a system.
The reason I am attracted to Pentax is they are smaller bodies ( have small hands) SR(really liked that on the Olympus), and the good build and the price is great for all the features it offers. I am not sure if I will see the difference between the II and IIs. I dont pixel peep much. Mostly use JPEGS. Will the IIs jpegs be better than II? I am kind of leaning toward the II as it is cheaper and is the same except for lack of AA filter. Will the IIs hold its value more than the II?
I thought of the K-30 also, but not sure if the AF of k-5 II's are better than K -30 for the above sports use. I also read that K-5 IIs' are going to be replaced soon, and K-30 already has a replacement, though I generally don't upgrade as soon as a new one hits the market. I usually wait at least a year. So I am looking for a body that I can grow into and use for the next year to two. So should I get the II or IIs or just get K-30 and wait for the new ones?
Thanks

**fs999** · 06-14-2013, 01:47 AM

The only difference is the removal of the anti-alias filter for better resolution.
If you aren't a pixel peeper, than the K5II will be great. With the price difference and a little more, you could buy a Limited lens

Allison · 06-14-2013, 04:20 AM

People see the most difference with the IS when they are shooting in RAW and have really good glass. You said you shoot mostly jpeg, so the II would be fine, but...

You mention about wanting to grow with your camera - so if that means investing in some of the top of the line lenses (da*, da limited, and fa limited), then you might want to go with the IIs. Once you have those lenses you will get more out of the lack of AA filter. Also, as you grow in your photographic skills, you may make the switch from shooting in jpeg to raw. So, it really depends on where you see yourself going in the next couple of years with photography.

**Aristophanes** · 06-14-2013, 05:18 AM

If you want a frank and technical discussion about AA filters and their need there i has been an excellent discussion here on Rangefinder forums:

Do we really need the AA filter? - Rangefinderforum.com

Posts #9 and #15 are from very knowledgeable photographers.

If it was my money, I'd save the $100 and skip the "s" version. I have never seen a shot where I wished there was no AA filter for resolution.

And if saving some cash for better glass is the point (and it should be) I'd get the K-30. It's also smaller and lighter.

IMO

mflagg · 06-14-2013, 06:04 AM

Considering what you use it for I would just buy a used k-5 from someone from the forum and get some better glass. I have met a couple others who have the K-5 II and for what you are using it for the added benefit is not worth the cost over a K-5.

Eulogy · 06-14-2013, 06:23 AM - **1 Like**

I'd recommend either picking up a used K-5 for cheap, or getting one of the K-30s before they run out of stock. Use the money you save (Around 300-500 USD) to buy a better lens. Bodies come and go, but glass is forever.

normhead · 06-14-2013, 06:30 AM

I have read from users who should know that the K-5 II cameras have more accurate and faster auto-focus. I'm passing on the K-5 IIs personally, I have 2 k-5s one for me , one for the wife, so upgrading costs me twice as much as anyone else, and I'm waiting for the 24 MP Pentax APS-c which will add more lw/ph than I can get going from a K-5 to a K-5II and bring me close to D600 resolution... but if I were buying right now... a noticeable increase in AF speed and accuracy would be really nice.. and apparently the K-5 IIs has that, according to reliable sources. Most of the AF improvements on the K-5II were introduced on the K-30 although they've been refined a bit. ANd the K-30 has some predictive tracking, so I wouldn't look at anything older than a K-30, if I were shopping today.

Especially for following your kids .

Knowing what I know today... if I were shopping, I'd go for a K-30. Especially since it has better IQ in terms of resolution than my K-5 and just as good as a K-5 II (but not the K-5IIs) in some tests. It also has better AF than my K-5 and it's relatively cheap... what's not to like? Get an 18-135 to go with in the kit and a DA 35mm 2.4 on the side and you'll be in new camera heaven.

Photogazr · 06-14-2013, 08:01 AM

Thank you for all the replies. I think the K-5IIs is very specialized probably for advanced photographers who know what they are doing, so maybe too much for me at this point as I don't have any limited glass and it will be a while before I can get some to fully take advantage of the IIs. So I think it is between the K-30 and K-5 II. Is the K-5 II's autofocus significantly better than the K-30 for sports/kids or is it marginal? I am not considering the K-5, as I feel the newer models have some improvements. There is a $300 difference between the K-30 with 18-135 vs K-5 II with the same lens. If the autofocus of the K-5 II is better, then it seems worth it to me, if not I would rather go with the K-30. I am considering the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 for sports use and add the 55 1.4 or FA 50 1.4 at a later date for portraits. I had the 35 1.8 for Nikon with my D7000 but did not find it too useful for portraits.

**grhazelton** · 06-14-2013, 08:10 AM

Pity that the K 30 has no grip. With both my K 10 and K 5 the grip, at least for me, is vital specially since I'm not afraid to shoot vertical format.

Some of the snaps I see suggest that the shooter feels the camera's innards are at risk if anything but horizontals are shot.

06-14-2013, 06:04 AM	#5
mflagg New Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: Woodstock, GA Photos: Albums Posts: 23	K-5 Considering what you use it for I would just buy a used k-5 from someone from the forum and get some better glass. I have met a couple others who have the K-5 II and for what you are using it for the added benefit is not worth the cost over a K-5.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
First time Pentax user	EdoNork	Welcomes and Introductions	2	03-09-2012 07:51 PM
First time battery charging time and notification	timezone	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	2	10-27-2011 11:25 AM
Long time lurker, first time poster	mookowz13	Welcomes and Introductions	2	06-18-2011 02:33 PM
Long time pentax owner (no idea why) and recent K7 buyer	JayR	Welcomes and Introductions	4	02-14-2010 01:50 AM
First time buyer needing advice	JamesD	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	17	10-10-2007 07:50 PM

06-13-2013, 11:12 PM	#1
Photogazr New Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Posts: 7	First time Pentax buyer I am looking at buying my first Pentax camera. I am not sure if I should buy the K-5 II or IIs. I've been reading these forums and it seems like the IIs is the most popular. I really can't seem to find a lot on the II. I am not an advanced level, more intermediate. I sold my d7000 and lenses and moved to OM-D on a friend's advise, but it was not easy to capture my kids karate/swimming/ basketball shots. I think a DSLR works better for those situations. I also want to use it for travel and portraits. I almost bought the d7000 again but thought I will look at others as I am not invested in a system. The reason I am attracted to Pentax is they are smaller bodies ( have small hands) SR(really liked that on the Olympus), and the good build and the price is great for all the features it offers. I am not sure if I will see the difference between the II and IIs. I dont pixel peep much. Mostly use JPEGS. Will the IIs jpegs be better than II? I am kind of leaning toward the II as it is cheaper and is the same except for lack of AA filter. Will the IIs hold its value more than the II? I thought of the K-30 also, but not sure if the AF of k-5 II's are better than K -30 for the above sports use. I also read that K-5 IIs' are going to be replaced soon, and K-30 already has a replacement, though I generally don't upgrade as soon as a new one hits the market. I usually wait at least a year. So I am looking for a body that I can grow into and use for the next year to two. So should I get the II or IIs or just get K-30 and wait for the new ones? Thanks

06-14-2013, 01:47 AM	#2
fs999 Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Luxembourg Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,639	The only difference is the removal of the anti-alias filter for better resolution. If you aren't a pixel peeper, than the K5II will be great. With the price difference and a little more, you could buy a Limited lens

06-14-2013, 04:20 AM	#3
Allison Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 667	People see the most difference with the IS when they are shooting in RAW and have really good glass. You said you shoot mostly jpeg, so the II would be fine, but... You mention about wanting to grow with your camera - so if that means investing in some of the top of the line lenses (da*, da limited, and fa limited), then you might want to go with the IIs. Once you have those lenses you will get more out of the lack of AA filter. Also, as you grow in your photographic skills, you may make the switch from shooting in jpeg to raw. So, it really depends on where you see yourself going in the next couple of years with photography.

06-14-2013, 05:18 AM	#4
Aristophanes Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rankin Inlet, Nunavut Photos: Albums Posts: 3,948	If you want a frank and technical discussion about AA filters and their need there i has been an excellent discussion here on Rangefinder forums: Do we really need the AA filter? - Rangefinderforum.com Posts #9 and #15 are from very knowledgeable photographers. If it was my money, I'd save the $100 and skip the "s" version. I have never seen a shot where I wished there was no AA filter for resolution. And if saving some cash for better glass is the point (and it should be) I'd get the K-30. It's also smaller and lighter. IMO

06-14-2013, 06:23 AM - 1 Like	#6
Eulogy Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Fredericton, New Brunswick Photos: Gallery Posts: 632	I'd recommend either picking up a used K-5 for cheap, or getting one of the K-30s before they run out of stock. Use the money you save (Around 300-500 USD) to buy a better lens. Bodies come and go, but glass is forever.

06-14-2013, 06:30 AM	#7
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	I have read from users who should know that the K-5 II cameras have more accurate and faster auto-focus. I'm passing on the K-5 IIs personally, I have 2 k-5s one for me , one for the wife, so upgrading costs me twice as much as anyone else, and I'm waiting for the 24 MP Pentax APS-c which will add more lw/ph than I can get going from a K-5 to a K-5II and bring me close to D600 resolution... but if I were buying right now... a noticeable increase in AF speed and accuracy would be really nice.. and apparently the K-5 IIs has that, according to reliable sources. Most of the AF improvements on the K-5II were introduced on the K-30 although they've been refined a bit. ANd the K-30 has some predictive tracking, so I wouldn't look at anything older than a K-30, if I were shopping today. Especially for following your kids . Knowing what I know today... if I were shopping, I'd go for a K-30. Especially since it has better IQ in terms of resolution than my K-5 and just as good as a K-5 II (but not the K-5IIs) in some tests. It also has better AF than my K-5 and it's relatively cheap... what's not to like? Get an 18-135 to go with in the kit and a DA 35mm 2.4 on the side and you'll be in new camera heaven.

06-14-2013, 08:01 AM	#8
Photogazr New Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Posts: 7 Original Poster	Thank you for all the replies. I think the K-5IIs is very specialized probably for advanced photographers who know what they are doing, so maybe too much for me at this point as I don't have any limited glass and it will be a while before I can get some to fully take advantage of the IIs. So I think it is between the K-30 and K-5 II. Is the K-5 II's autofocus significantly better than the K-30 for sports/kids or is it marginal? I am not considering the K-5, as I feel the newer models have some improvements. There is a $300 difference between the K-30 with 18-135 vs K-5 II with the same lens. If the autofocus of the K-5 II is better, then it seems worth it to me, if not I would rather go with the K-30. I am considering the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 for sports use and add the 55 1.4 or FA 50 1.4 at a later date for portraits. I had the 35 1.8 for Nikon with my D7000 but did not find it too useful for portraits.

06-14-2013, 08:10 AM	#9
grhazelton Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Jonesboro, GA Photos: Albums Posts: 1,972	Pity that the K 30 has no grip. With both my K 10 and K 5 the grip, at least for me, is vital specially since I'm not afraid to shoot vertical format. Some of the snaps I see suggest that the shooter feels the camera's innards are at risk if anything but horizontals are shot.