[FullertonImages]

The K5 is in no way an upgrade from my K20. give me a 645D or FF thanks.

Than what is it that you look for in an upgrade? Just a larger sensor? The K-5 is better than the K20d in nearly every way.

[chalion]

But, is the K5 enough of an upgrade over the K20D to buy now, or to wait a month or 2 for proper review and to see what bugs people discover? I've seen the images frank & creampuff have shown us and I know i'm going to get the K5, but not until I see more reviews (and collect enough to buy it). I eagerly await my copy of the DA 35mm f2.4 though, which has been a focal length i've been waiting for.

[Gimbal]

I have been skeptical of these exclamations in the past too but this time I'm speechless myself, after seeing this pic in the other thread
Quite sure K20D can't achieve anywhere near that under the same studio settings.

[imgwideleft]http://www.pentax.jp/japan/imaging/digital/slr/k-5/image/ex_02.jpg[/imgwideleft]

Hm, my k10 has a slightly tilted sensor but this is extreme.

[Urkeldaedalus]

But, is the K5 enough of an upgrade over the K20D to buy now, or to wait a month or 2 for proper review and to see what bugs people discover? I've seen the images frank & creampuff have shown us and I know i'm going to get the K5, but not until I see more reviews (and collect enough to buy it). I eagerly await my copy of the DA 35mm f2.4 though, which has been a focal length i've been waiting for.

No matter the camera, if you want the best price, it's generally best to wait as long as you can stand before you order it. For the K-5, I'd guess the price will be down several hundred dollars by the beginning of next year.

[johnmflores]

Quite sure you're wrong. There's nothing exceptional about that photo (from a camera's perspective). Sure it's a nice shot. But a K20 under the same studio settings, would in fact, create the exact same image; or at least one with a very negligible difference. I've seen the K20d perform in the studio, and it does amazingly well at iso100 with controlled lighting. In fact it does amazingly well in many conditions. And that goes for the K10d, and obviously for the K-7 as well.

That's a great shot, but from the point of the camera itself, there is nothing special going on. Everything about that photo that stands out to me, has nothing to do with the camera. The lighting is nice, the pose is nice, the model is good looking. But that shot does nothing to show one camera's superiority over another. The lighting is beautiful and abundant, DR is controllable, AF, FPS and noise are all non-issues. The only thing that image requires of a camera, is the ability to render a very sharp image at iso100 with lots of light around; which has always been the strong point of all the recent Pentax DSLRs (except the K-x).

I'm not saying that the K-5 isn't much better than the K20d. It's much, much better. In many, many ways. I'm just saying that this image doesn't highlight any of them, and it's flat out wrong to say that this image shows the K-5's superiority over another camera. This image pretty much just shows photographer skill, and that's it.

Agreed 100%. It's funny how the introduction of a new camera makes all the old stuff - the stuff that's taken some great photos and also earned some $$$ - suddenly crap.

Yes, the K-5 looks to be a much better camera in a lot of respects - DR, ISO, AF - but the K20d is still capable of bringing home bacon....

[Blue]

Agreed 100%. It's funny how the introduction of a new camera makes all the old stuff - the stuff that's taken some great photos and also earned some $$$ - suddenly crap.

Yes, the K-5 looks to be a much better camera in a lot of respects - DR, ISO, AF - but the K20d is still capable of bringing home bacon....

My poor old K200d can't even get out of bed in the mornings and my K20d is drinking more than usual. Its really a sad state of affairs that those folks in Tokyo have caused.

[jeff knight]

I have been skeptical of these exclamations in the past too but this time I'm speechless myself, after seeing this pic in the other thread
Quite sure K20D can't achieve anywhere near that under the same studio settings.

I'm sure the K5 is a killer camera. God knows I want one. However this model shoot everyone is so gaga over confuses me. Granted the color rendition and sharpness is indeed stunning, but I think what you are mostly reacting to is the the increase in resolution.

These are BAD model shots at actual pixels. I would even call them ugly. I don't know a single model who wouldn't be horrified to see every pore in their face captured with such brutal detail. If they were portraits of wrinkled old men, or rock cliffs, or something, I would be properly awed, but these? Ugh...poor girl.

[Pentaxor]

I'm sure the K5 is a killer camera. God knows I want one. However this model shoot everyone is so gaga over confuses me. Granted the color rendition and sharpness is indeed stunning, but I think what you are mostly reacting to is the the increase in resolution.

These are BAD model shots at actual pixels. I would even call them ugly. I don't know a single model who wouldn't be horrified to see every pore in their face captured with such brutal detail. If they were portraits of wrinkled old men, or rock cliffs, or something, I would be properly awed, but these? Ugh...poor girl.

you can always soften it up or do some post-process make-up.

[panoguy]

.Over the years I've some to distrust the euphoria that accompanies a new purchase, and I see a lot of "I'm speechless!" and "stunning!" superlatives being thrown around - truthfully, I'd feel better if I saw some very pragmatic "here's what's *not* perfect about my k-5" posts right about now, because then I'd be able to decide if that factor was even important to me.

Oh, now you're just raining on the parade!

But I agree. See, I tried out the K-5 at a local photo expo on Saturday (marked "pre-production" with the card door taped shut, but v1.00 firmware - go figure) and switched back and forth between it and my K20D. The focusing with my DA35 ltd. was not noticeably different unless I was pointing toward an area of low contrast. Perhaps it's better with SDM lenses or ones without that gigantic macro throw?

That did give me pause to consider that there might be some euphoria clouding over the new AF... and who knows how many other things!

[jeff knight]

you can always soften it up or do some post-process make-up.

She's wearing plenty of make-up already. That post processing NR and blur/smear
stuff looks weird to me. Rather use a more appropriate lens or Softar filter.

[Col]

I'm sure the K5 is a killer camera. God knows I want one. However this model shoot everyone is so gaga over confuses me. Granted the color rendition and sharpness is indeed stunning, but I think what you are mostly reacting to is the the increase in resolution.

These are BAD model shots at actual pixels. I would even call them ugly. I don't know a single model who wouldn't be horrified to see every pore in their face captured with such brutal detail. If they were portraits of wrinkled old men, or rock cliffs, or something, I would be properly awed, but these? Ugh...poor girl.

Well the shot worked, I want to marry the camera not the model

[Pentaxor]

She's wearing plenty of make-up already. That post processing NR and blur/smear
stuff looks weird to me. Rather use a more appropriate lens or Softar filter.

anything that would make it work, just apply so. there is Topaz Clean and Imagenomic portraiture for skin retouching and texture/detail control.

[dgaies]

Oh, now you're just raining on the parade!

But I agree. See, I tried out the K-5 at a local photo expo on Saturday (marked "pre-production" with the card door taped shut, but v1.00 firmware - go figure) and switched back and forth between it and my K20D. The focusing with my DA35 ltd. was not noticeably different unless I was pointing toward an area of low contrast. Perhaps it's better with SDM lenses or ones without that gigantic macro throw?

That did give me pause to consider that there might be some euphoria clouding over the new AF... and who knows how many other things!

Here's my take on the "euphoria". If you already really liked the K7, then it'd hard to imagine you wouldn't love the K5. When it comes down to it, the K5 is a K7 with a different (better) sensor and AF (plus a few other extras). I am fairly certain that the sensor is a pretty nice improvement, in the context of more detail and better high ISO performance. The AF seems also shows some improvement, but I don't personally can;t gauge how significant it is. The AF of the K5 locks on targets a little faster (using both screw and SDM lenses) compared to the K7, I've tested and confirmed that. But I have no idea (or way of knowing) how this compared to the better AF systems that Canon and Nikon have on their bodies, especially in areas like AF-C.

[falconeye]

These are BAD model shots at actual pixels. I would even call them ugly. I don't know a single model who wouldn't be horrified to see every pore in their face captured with such brutal detail.

The model isn't the one paying the bill.
And this "brutal detail" is the norm for MF digital model shots. Just new in APSC land ...

[jeff knight]

The model isn't the one paying the bill.

I take portraits for money, and often my models do pay the bills.

And this "brutal detail" is the norm for MF digital model shots. Just new in APSC land ...

Partially true, but here's a model shoot: Background shot with Pentax 12-24,
model photographed with Volna-9 no retouch. The 2 images superimposed.
No crater-face here with Volna-9 manual lens even blown up wall size.
There are lots of wonderful manual portrait lenses that flatter the ladies
even on 4x5 film.

I am big falconeye fan! You and your site have helped me so many times.
I hope this divergence of very subjective views doesn't make you hate me.

Sorry if I am getting off subject...