Is the K-5 II the poor man's Leica ?

kadajawi · 01-18-2015, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by az1895

Not only is it the Poor Mans Lieca........Its the Poor WISE mans Lieca !
Nothing wrong with being smart........ unless your a Rich German tourist !

---------- Post added 2015-01-15 at 06:43 ----------

Yes....But it will only be read by Rich German tourists ! Don't tell anyone.....I saw 2 portly german tourists at the Grand Canyon last year carrying Pentax ! We are in trouble here....Run !
Wunderbar......Wer nicht spurt, wird unheimlich zusammengeschissen !

That is a rather confusing post.

To the topic... I whole-heartedly disagree. I love my K-5, but in terms of ergonomics, the way you use it etc. It's nowhere near a Leica (well, at least the M series). If anything, then Fuji makes poor man's Leicas. There is simply more to photography than the result.

**hjoseph7** · 01-18-2015, 06:14 PM

Fuji doesn't have the lenses...

**jpzk** · 01-18-2015, 06:17 PM

Originally posted by hjoseph7

Fuji doesn't have the lenses...

Fuji ?? .... now you are really confusing poor kadajawi

kadajawi · 01-18-2015, 07:40 PM

The thread title says if the K-5 II is a poor man's Leica, and that's like saying if a Mercedes C class is a poor man's Ferrari or Lotus. Not really, no it isn't. A DSLR is nothing like a rangefinder. It doesn't work like one, it doesn't feel like one. That doesn't mean that DSLRs are bad, or not as good as rangefinders, but they are different. DSLRs are more in your face, bigger, louder, more attention grabbing (though Pentax ones are on the less attention grabbing side of things, but nowhere near say a Leica).

Fuji cameras however are (some at least) rangefinder cameras, with that huge, bright optical viewfinder, compact body and lenses, and a rather Leica-like look.

Btw. Fuji seems to have some nice primes too.

**jpzk** · 01-18-2015, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by kadajawi

The thread title says if the K-5 II is a poor man's Leica, and that's like saying if a Mercedes C class is a poor man's Ferrari or Lotus. Not really, no it isn't. A DSLR is nothing like a rangefinder. It doesn't work like one, it doesn't feel like one. That doesn't mean that DSLRs are bad, or not as good as rangefinders, but they are different. DSLRs are more in your face, bigger, louder, more attention grabbing (though Pentax ones are on the less attention grabbing side of things, but nowhere near say a Leica).

Fuji cameras however are (some at least) rangefinder cameras, with that huge, bright optical viewfinder, compact body and lenses, and a rather Leica-like look.

Btw. Fuji seems to have some nice primes too.

I couldn't afford a Leica, so I got me a Fuji X-E2 ...

for "other-than-birding-camera" ... fits the bill.
They now have a good choice of primes indeed and, according to reviews, up there with the best.

As for the Leica, ... sure I'd like to get my hands on one, even for a "test"

The Pentax K5IIs is still among my top choices once I decide to "upgrade" my K5.

Heck ! They all are good cameras anyway!

kadajawi · 01-18-2015, 09:57 PM

So what was that other comment about then?

I agree, they are all good cameras, for different purposes. I've met a (film) Leica owner in a Fuji showroom who was pretty impressed... I think he was going to buy a Fuji. I was impressed too, especially with the X-Pro1 or so...

The thread title really should have been Pentax Limited... poor man's Leica? Would have made more sense.

**cpk** · 01-19-2015, 07:09 AM

Originally posted by kadajawi

The thread title says if the K-5 II is a poor man's Leica, and that's like saying if a Mercedes C class is a poor man's Ferrari or Lotus. Not really, no it isn't. A DSLR is nothing like a rangefinder. It doesn't work like one, it doesn't feel like one. That doesn't mean that DSLRs are bad, or not as good as rangefinders, but they are different. DSLRs are more in your face, bigger, louder, more attention grabbing (though Pentax ones are on the less attention grabbing side of things, but nowhere near say a Leica).

As a long-time user of both Leica Ms and Pentax cameras, I don't agree with these statements. in terms of size the K-5 and its variants are very close in size to the Leica M9.

Compare camera dimensions side by side

Earlier in this thread I posted a description of a test I made comparing Leica reflex lenses to Pentax M lenses. Are the current Leica M lenses better that the DA Limited ones? Probably, but given the cost differences between the two brands of lenses and the ability of current software to overcome lens aberrations and softness, is the end difference that great? I doubt it.

I do a lot of street photography. I find the K-5 handles just as well as a Leica M. My main street lenses are the DA 21 and the DA 40 Limited lenses, with the occasional addition of the DA 15 and DA 70 Limiteds. The first two are basically equivalent to 35 mm and 50 mm on the Leica M. I like the autofocus capability of the K-5; it beats the necessity to manually focus the Leica M when you are taking a quick street photo. Zone focusing can, of course, be used with both cameras. The Leica M is very quiet, but the K-5 is sufficiently quiet as to be unnoticeable in street conditions.

I also do a lot of nightclub photography of flamenco dancers. The capabilities of a rangefinder camera for focusing far outweigh the those of a split-image rangefinder screen in a DSLR when in a dark nightclub with fast moving dancers. With the latter you need to find some straight edge to split and bring together to get the focus right, whereas the Leica M's rangefinder will enable quick focusing on a dancer's frizzy hair. A microprism in a DSLR is better than a split image, but still no match for the Leica M. I use autofocus with the K-5 when photographing dancers with good but not great results, not because of the camera, but because its autofocus capabilities in dim light are not the greatest. In fact, I purchased a K-5 II when the price dropped drastically because of its better autofocus capabilities. I have not yet had a chance to test it in a nightclub, but in dim light (sunset on the street) it does autofocus better than the K-5. Here I would wish that the Pentax DSLRs had the focus capability of some of their competitors. But in terms of overall handling, I would consider the K-5 and Leica M to be comparable.

There was an article back in the 70s in one of the photo magazines comparing the handling of a rangefinder camera with that of an SLR. The main difference was that with a rangefinder you could see outside the floating frame in the viewfinder which defined what the lens was taking, whereas with an SLR you had a black frame around the image. This is true, and it applies today to the Leica M compared to the K-5. But, again, I don't find that significant in my use of the two cameras. Where this difference really was significant was with the Nikon SP, Nikon's last rangefinder camera, back in the late 50's and early 60's. The Nikon SP had a 1:1 viewfinder; what you saw was life size. With the SP up to your right eye and your left eye open, you could see everything around the image the camera saw and anticipate upcoming action. It was quite amazing. I am left-eye dominant and wear glasses. I tried contact lenses (the hard ones; soft ones weren't available then) so that I could do this right-eye viewing. Unfortunately my eyes couldn't adapt to the hard contact lenses in the long run and I had to go back to left-eye viewing. With the Leica Ms, however, you can't do this as its viewfinder is not 1:1.

kadajawi · 01-19-2015, 07:42 AM

I see, that's very interesting. I have only had the chance to try the X-Pro1 (in a showroom) vs my K-5, and thought they were very different. By all means I really like my K-5, but there was something about that Fuji that impressed me. I just wanted to take photos with it, even though there wasn't anything worth taking.

When it gets darker my eyes are simply useless for focusing, even with a microprism screen. At least that goes for APS-C DSLRs.

I would have said they are both great, just different in terms of how you shoot with them and how they feel when you are doing it.

Btw., just as an aside: The Sigma SD9 and SD10 had a larger than sensor size viewfinder... you could actually see what was going on outside of the frame. Thought that was a brilliant idea. I think what happened was that Sigma created a FF body and put in an APS-C sensor, then drew a border around the area of the APS-C sensor in the viewfinder. If Pentax ever makes a FF DSLRs that would be a nice thing... in APS-C mode it turns on a border to show what you are getting, so you essentially have the same feature as the Sigmas.

**cpk** · 01-19-2015, 08:08 AM

An additional comment. Years ago when I had my Nikon SP, I had a chance to use a Leica M3 at the same time. There is a definite Leica "feel" which my SP did not have. The Leicas are solid cameras, probably more solid than most in their construction. This, I think, is one of their attractions. Years ago a USAF photographer had to eject at high altitude. His Leica Reflex was recovered. Its lens was smashed, but the body was repairable. The only other camera I can say from my own experience had the same sense of solidity was a Linhof Super Technika I had the chance to use back in 1960.

But as Ernst Haas said: "Leica, schmeica. The camera doesn't make a bit of difference. All of them can record what you are seeing. But, you have to SEE."

It comes down to what you can do with the camera(s) and lenses you have.

windhorse · 04-11-2015, 07:51 PM

what I like about the split image focussing screen is you can be dead certain when the lines meet the subject is in focus, whereas with the rangefinder patch I find it harder to be very sure exact focus is achieved that is why i switched from rangefinder to a K5 with a katzeye split image screen that works fine for me

Qwntm · 04-17-2015, 10:24 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by hjoseph7

With a few "Limited" lenses one can go around town taking pictures like the photographers of old that did not have a zoom. I have used Nikon and Canon DSLR's but they do not match to the sophistication of this fine tuned instrument. As far as lenses, nothing beats Leica lenses, but the Pentax Limited lenses are pretty close...

I have walked the streets shooting an M3, M6 and Leica lenses. I have walked the streets shooting The k5 (K5IIs and K3, too) and shooting the K series Pentax with LTD primes feels more like shooting an M3 Leica than does anything made by Canon or Nikon.

I've also done the same with a Fuji XE-2, X-Pro 1 and XT-1 and those felt more like walking around with a Canon G-12...

Just my impressions of my experiences, make of them what you will. (And don't read too much into them either.

)

01-19-2015, 08:08 AM	#24
cpk Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Montreal Posts: 638	An additional comment. Years ago when I had my Nikon SP, I had a chance to use a Leica M3 at the same time. There is a definite Leica "feel" which my SP did not have. The Leicas are solid cameras, probably more solid than most in their construction. This, I think, is one of their attractions. Years ago a USAF photographer had to eject at high altitude. His Leica Reflex was recovered. Its lens was smashed, but the body was repairable. The only other camera I can say from my own experience had the same sense of solidity was a Linhof Super Technika I had the chance to use back in 1960. But as Ernst Haas said: "Leica, schmeica. The camera doesn't make a bit of difference. All of them can record what you are seeing. But, you have to SEE." It comes down to what you can do with the camera(s) and lenses you have. Last edited by cpk; 01-19-2015 at 08:35 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
SMC Pentax 1:2/28: the poor man's Distagon?	Asahiflex	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	108	03-21-2016 03:25 PM
Now this is the A7 "S" camera Sony should have made - the new rumoured Leica S	Christine Tham	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	6	04-10-2014 12:14 PM
SMC Pentax 1:2/28: the poor man's Distagon on BMPCC	chamoatomico	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	11-21-2013 11:39 AM
Misc Testing Out the Poor Man's Budget Studio Set-up	Julie	Post Your Photos!	3	12-06-2012 10:54 PM
Fa 50/1.4 - the poor man's limited	jthommo	Post Your Photos!	13	01-05-2007 09:41 AM

01-18-2015, 06:12 PM	#16
kadajawi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 2,799	Originally posted by az1895 Not only is it the Poor Mans Lieca........Its the Poor WISE mans Lieca ! Nothing wrong with being smart........ unless your a Rich German tourist ! ---------- Post added 2015-01-15 at 06:43 ---------- Yes....But it will only be read by Rich German tourists ! Don't tell anyone.....I saw 2 portly german tourists at the Grand Canyon last year carrying Pentax ! We are in trouble here....Run ! Wunderbar......Wer nicht spurt, wird unheimlich zusammengeschissen ! That is a rather confusing post. To the topic... I whole-heartedly disagree. I love my K-5, but in terms of ergonomics, the way you use it etc. It's nowhere near a Leica (well, at least the M series). If anything, then Fuji makes poor man's Leicas. There is simply more to photography than the result.

01-18-2015, 06:14 PM	#17
hjoseph7 Site Supporter Join Date: May 2014 Location: Minnesota Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,046 Original Poster	Fuji doesn't have the lenses...

01-18-2015, 06:17 PM	#18
jpzk Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Québec Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,251	Originally posted by hjoseph7 Fuji doesn't have the lenses... Fuji ?? .... now you are really confusing poor kadajawi

01-18-2015, 07:40 PM	#19
kadajawi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 2,799	The thread title says if the K-5 II is a poor man's Leica, and that's like saying if a Mercedes C class is a poor man's Ferrari or Lotus. Not really, no it isn't. A DSLR is nothing like a rangefinder. It doesn't work like one, it doesn't feel like one. That doesn't mean that DSLRs are bad, or not as good as rangefinders, but they are different. DSLRs are more in your face, bigger, louder, more attention grabbing (though Pentax ones are on the less attention grabbing side of things, but nowhere near say a Leica). Fuji cameras however are (some at least) rangefinder cameras, with that huge, bright optical viewfinder, compact body and lenses, and a rather Leica-like look. Btw. Fuji seems to have some nice primes too.

01-18-2015, 07:58 PM	#20
jpzk Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Québec Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,251	Originally posted by kadajawi The thread title says if the K-5 II is a poor man's Leica, and that's like saying if a Mercedes C class is a poor man's Ferrari or Lotus. Not really, no it isn't. A DSLR is nothing like a rangefinder. It doesn't work like one, it doesn't feel like one. That doesn't mean that DSLRs are bad, or not as good as rangefinders, but they are different. DSLRs are more in your face, bigger, louder, more attention grabbing (though Pentax ones are on the less attention grabbing side of things, but nowhere near say a Leica). Fuji cameras however are (some at least) rangefinder cameras, with that huge, bright optical viewfinder, compact body and lenses, and a rather Leica-like look. Btw. Fuji seems to have some nice primes too. I couldn't afford a Leica, so I got me a Fuji X-E2 ... for "other-than-birding-camera" ... fits the bill. They now have a good choice of primes indeed and, according to reviews, up there with the best. As for the Leica, ... sure I'd like to get my hands on one, even for a "test" The Pentax K5IIs is still among my top choices once I decide to "upgrade" my K5. Heck ! They all are good cameras anyway!

01-18-2015, 09:57 PM	#21
kadajawi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 2,799	So what was that other comment about then? I agree, they are all good cameras, for different purposes. I've met a (film) Leica owner in a Fuji showroom who was pretty impressed... I think he was going to buy a Fuji. I was impressed too, especially with the X-Pro1 or so... The thread title really should have been Pentax Limited... poor man's Leica? Would have made more sense.

01-19-2015, 07:09 AM	#22
cpk Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Montreal Posts: 638	Originally posted by kadajawi The thread title says if the K-5 II is a poor man's Leica, and that's like saying if a Mercedes C class is a poor man's Ferrari or Lotus. Not really, no it isn't. A DSLR is nothing like a rangefinder. It doesn't work like one, it doesn't feel like one. That doesn't mean that DSLRs are bad, or not as good as rangefinders, but they are different. DSLRs are more in your face, bigger, louder, more attention grabbing (though Pentax ones are on the less attention grabbing side of things, but nowhere near say a Leica). As a long-time user of both Leica Ms and Pentax cameras, I don't agree with these statements. in terms of size the K-5 and its variants are very close in size to the Leica M9. Compare camera dimensions side by side Earlier in this thread I posted a description of a test I made comparing Leica reflex lenses to Pentax M lenses. Are the current Leica M lenses better that the DA Limited ones? Probably, but given the cost differences between the two brands of lenses and the ability of current software to overcome lens aberrations and softness, is the end difference that great? I doubt it. I do a lot of street photography. I find the K-5 handles just as well as a Leica M. My main street lenses are the DA 21 and the DA 40 Limited lenses, with the occasional addition of the DA 15 and DA 70 Limiteds. The first two are basically equivalent to 35 mm and 50 mm on the Leica M. I like the autofocus capability of the K-5; it beats the necessity to manually focus the Leica M when you are taking a quick street photo. Zone focusing can, of course, be used with both cameras. The Leica M is very quiet, but the K-5 is sufficiently quiet as to be unnoticeable in street conditions. I also do a lot of nightclub photography of flamenco dancers. The capabilities of a rangefinder camera for focusing far outweigh the those of a split-image rangefinder screen in a DSLR when in a dark nightclub with fast moving dancers. With the latter you need to find some straight edge to split and bring together to get the focus right, whereas the Leica M's rangefinder will enable quick focusing on a dancer's frizzy hair. A microprism in a DSLR is better than a split image, but still no match for the Leica M. I use autofocus with the K-5 when photographing dancers with good but not great results, not because of the camera, but because its autofocus capabilities in dim light are not the greatest. In fact, I purchased a K-5 II when the price dropped drastically because of its better autofocus capabilities. I have not yet had a chance to test it in a nightclub, but in dim light (sunset on the street) it does autofocus better than the K-5. Here I would wish that the Pentax DSLRs had the focus capability of some of their competitors. But in terms of overall handling, I would consider the K-5 and Leica M to be comparable. There was an article back in the 70s in one of the photo magazines comparing the handling of a rangefinder camera with that of an SLR. The main difference was that with a rangefinder you could see outside the floating frame in the viewfinder which defined what the lens was taking, whereas with an SLR you had a black frame around the image. This is true, and it applies today to the Leica M compared to the K-5. But, again, I don't find that significant in my use of the two cameras. Where this difference really was significant was with the Nikon SP, Nikon's last rangefinder camera, back in the late 50's and early 60's. The Nikon SP had a 1:1 viewfinder; what you saw was life size. With the SP up to your right eye and your left eye open, you could see everything around the image the camera saw and anticipate upcoming action. It was quite amazing. I am left-eye dominant and wear glasses. I tried contact lenses (the hard ones; soft ones weren't available then) so that I could do this right-eye viewing. Unfortunately my eyes couldn't adapt to the hard contact lenses in the long run and I had to go back to left-eye viewing. With the Leica Ms, however, you can't do this as its viewfinder is not 1:1.

01-19-2015, 07:42 AM	#23
kadajawi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 2,799	I see, that's very interesting. I have only had the chance to try the X-Pro1 (in a showroom) vs my K-5, and thought they were very different. By all means I really like my K-5, but there was something about that Fuji that impressed me. I just wanted to take photos with it, even though there wasn't anything worth taking. When it gets darker my eyes are simply useless for focusing, even with a microprism screen. At least that goes for APS-C DSLRs. I would have said they are both great, just different in terms of how you shoot with them and how they feel when you are doing it. Btw., just as an aside: The Sigma SD9 and SD10 had a larger than sensor size viewfinder... you could actually see what was going on outside of the frame. Thought that was a brilliant idea. I think what happened was that Sigma created a FF body and put in an APS-C sensor, then drew a border around the area of the APS-C sensor in the viewfinder. If Pentax ever makes a FF DSLRs that would be a nice thing... in APS-C mode it turns on a border to show what you are getting, so you essentially have the same feature as the Sigmas.

04-11-2015, 07:51 PM	#25
windhorse Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 101	what I like about the split image focussing screen is you can be dead certain when the lines meet the subject is in focus, whereas with the rangefinder patch I find it harder to be very sure exact focus is achieved that is why i switched from rangefinder to a K5 with a katzeye split image screen that works fine for me

04-17-2015, 10:24 AM - 1 Like	#26
Qwntm Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Eastern Oregon Posts: 856	Originally posted by hjoseph7 With a few "Limited" lenses one can go around town taking pictures like the photographers of old that did not have a zoom. I have used Nikon and Canon DSLR's but they do not match to the sophistication of this fine tuned instrument. As far as lenses, nothing beats Leica lenses, but the Pentax Limited lenses are pretty close... I have walked the streets shooting an M3, M6 and Leica lenses. I have walked the streets shooting The k5 (K5IIs and K3, too) and shooting the K series Pentax with LTD primes feels more like shooting an M3 Leica than does anything made by Canon or Nikon. I've also done the same with a Fuji XE-2, X-Pro 1 and XT-1 and those felt more like walking around with a Canon G-12... Just my impressions of my experiences, make of them what you will. (And don't read too much into them either. )