Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-24-2010, 02:46 AM   #16
Veteran Member
Frogfish's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 4,490
You are ignoring what are virtually the two most important progressions in DSLR's today (plus Video for some).

Pentax AF has been some way behind that of CaNikon for a long time and the step forward by the K5 looks like it may even restore parity - it looks superb from the Youtube clips.

An ability to utilise higher ISO's gives you so much more flexibility, the Kx is good, the Kr much better (it seems) and the K5 (from the 6,400 ISO shots on the web already) is superb. I rarely go above ISO 800 on my K7 as at 1,600 the quality drops dramatically. If I can use 1,600 (which seems to be a given, given the prove quality from the Kx alone) or even 3,200 (which seems like it is near certain to be very high quality / low noise) then that is a huge step forward., never mind 6,400.

There are some negatives to the K5 when comparing to it's nearest competition ; Price (yet to be confirmed so this may well come down fast), small buffer, lower flash sync speed, no AF control for video, but there are plenty of positives too.

The K5 is a big step forward from the K7 (which i have) and I'll be buying it (subject to confirmation of the improved AF & high ISO usability from respected reviews) around Dec / Jan when the reviews have finished and the price has stabilised.

So again I ask : Why would you exclude the two main improvements from your analysis when those two improvements will have such a massive impact on virtually every aspect of your photography ?

09-24-2010, 03:07 AM   #17
Pentaxian
amoringello's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Virginia, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,393
QuoteQuote:
.... but many pros prefer to use ISO 800 at most (or even ISO 400) coupled with a decent tripod and vibroreduction system because even if the noise reduction system is perfect, lower ISO-s still have better image qualities than high ISO ones.

but an amateur can shoot even at ISO 3200 if extreme quality picture is not necessary.
This is assuming all professionals are either portrait, landscape or have enough money to afford arranging of having powerful strobes installed into the ceilings of an event location.

Plenty of places where you need to work with available light, and still retain high shutter speed (especially with animals, you cannot or should not use flash even if you wanted).

The only way to get these shots with high enough quality to make a buck it to use a camera capable of producing acceptably crisp images at high ISO. (we're talking ISO 6400 being bare minimum, usually 12,800. I'm not convinced yet that Pentax is up to the task to make a quality image at that high of an ISO, but am hopeful. )
09-24-2010, 03:36 AM   #18
Pentaxian
Mike.P's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: South Coast .. UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,734
QuoteOriginally posted by Frogfish Quote
Pentax AF has been some way behind that of CaNikon for a long time and the step forward by the K5 looks like it may even restore parity - it looks superb from the Youtube clips.

I have a horrible feeling a lot of people are going to be disappointed here, including myself.

I really hope I am wrong.
09-24-2010, 04:04 AM   #19
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,957
I think based on my reading the biggest improvements in the K5 as compared to the K7 are: continuous auto focus, high iso, dyanmic range and improved video. There are some other smaller things like increased frames per second. At the same time, I doubt that the K7 will ever drop to 500 dollars. I would say its floor is somewhere around 700 dollars, since it does have some more expensive hardware. Pentax won't sell them at a loss.

09-24-2010, 12:16 PM   #20
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: New York
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 388
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by WerTicus Quote
however. you said you didnt care about these things?
Well I was under the impression that it would still be much better then a starter DSLR...Since it is Pentax's pro model.... :-/

Thats why it didnt matter, like I didn't need something insanely great but still would like it a bit better since it is a more advanced camera and came out way after the D40.

Last edited by Abstract; 09-24-2010 at 12:22 PM.
09-24-2010, 12:23 PM   #21
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,043
QuoteOriginally posted by Abstract Quote
Let me try to explain, Lets say noise is not an issue for me, neither is auto-focus and fps(5 is enough imo) is there much advantage to the K-5? I mean I remember when the K-7 hit and the K20D went down to 500 bucks at many sites(Bestbuy,walmart,etc...) so if that happens again, well it seems like a giant deal.

Now is the Image quality suppose to be better on the K-5 ignoring noise all together, I am talking about color, depth of field, etc...

(Sorry if this topic was done before I looked but if it exists, point me there.)

I hope I made this clear...and yeah I know the K-5 is not out but from what I hear is that it uses the same sensor as the Nikon 7000(?) so I thought this would be ok to ask.

So, what you are asking is if none of the improvements that the K5 brings to the table matters to you is the k5 a better camera?
I'm rather surprised that someone would ask this question.

Here's an extreme example of what you are asking:
If 6mp and 5 pictures a minute is all a person needs, is the K5 an improvement over the *istD?
The answer is no, it isn't.

Here's another: If a person only uses their car as a grocery hauler, is a Ford F350 Super Duty better than a Ford Escort?
No, it isn't.

You need to use the extra capabilities to gain the advantage of them.
09-24-2010, 12:26 PM   #22
Banned




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Millstone,NJ
Posts: 6,491
QuoteOriginally posted by Abstract Quote
Well I was under the impression that it would still be much better then a starter DSLR...Since it is Pentax's pro model.... :-/

Thats why it didnt matter, like I didn't need something insanely great but still would like it a bit better since it is a more advanced camera and came out way after the D40.
The 645D is a Pentax pro model and the K-5 is an 'enthusiast' DSLR .
09-24-2010, 12:27 PM   #23
Junior Member




Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Colorado
Posts: 49
Discarding both improved noise and AF does basically kill any real strong advantages of the k-5 over the k-7. In which case, I would certainly feel confident in buying the k-7 at reduced price.

I love my k-7, but if I stumble across an envelope stuffed with money this coming year then I'm springing for the k-5.

09-24-2010, 12:36 PM   #24
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: New York
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 388
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by jogiba Quote
The 645D is a Pentax pro model and the K-5 is an 'enthusiast' DSLR .
Ok...enthusiast then...usually better then a beginner model right? I have seen it compared to the D300 and others...sooo....my point still sorta remains, I mean I just was under the impression that a camera that retailed for over a grand at one point would perform better then a 500 dollar D40.

Again I am not bashing it, just a little surprised is all.
09-24-2010, 01:03 PM   #25
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,679
The surprise is mutual.
K-5 specs no better than a D40?
Where do you get this from?
Wheatfield's point is valid, and begs the question: what do YOU want from a camera?
If it can be satisfied with a D40, then why bother even contemplating a K-5?
For those who know what a K-5 can do, there will be enough reasons to go for it.
Have a good look at the K-5 specs, then test drive it yourself when it comes out in your local store - and see how you go.
09-24-2010, 01:08 PM   #26
Banned




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Millstone,NJ
Posts: 6,491
QuoteOriginally posted by Abstract Quote
Ok...enthusiast then...usually better then a beginner model right? I have seen it compared to the D300 and others...sooo....my point still sorta remains, I mean I just was under the impression that a camera that retailed for over a grand at one point would perform better then a 500 dollar D40.

Again I am not bashing it, just a little surprised is all.
Your funny.
09-24-2010, 01:13 PM   #27
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: New York
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 388
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
K-5 specs no better than a D4
Was talking about the K-7, sorry if I confused you, someone said that the D40 and K-7 are about the same ISO wise, I found that surprising is all.

QuoteOriginally posted by jogiba Quote
Your funny.
How am I funny? For thinking that a enthusiast model would perform better iso wise then a beginner? If so I am hilarious...

Honestly at this point it seems like a fanboy getting angry, I am comparing cameras to get the best deal, I have no brand loyalty, point is K-7 has been put up against models such as the D300 and Canon Equivalent. It has not been compared with beginner models.
09-24-2010, 01:58 PM   #28
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,679
QuoteOriginally posted by Abstract Quote
Was talking about the K-7, sorry if I confused you, someone said that the D40 and K-7 are about the same ISO wise, I found that surprising is all.
You are quite seriously misinformed, and gullible - sorry to say.
Go found out for yourself what the difference is between these two cams.
High ISO performance is NOT the be-all-and-end-all of important features in a camera.

QuoteQuote:
Honestly at this point it seems like a fanboy getting angry, I am comparing cameras to get the best deal, I have no brand loyalty, point is K-7 has been put up against models such as the D300 and Canon Equivalent. It has not been compared with beginner models.
There is no fanboyism here, simply a reaction to a pretty fanciful claim that has no merit. We can all tell you here that the D300 is a slicker camera than the K-7, the 7D less so, but you'll be paying for them - such is life. Now it's time for you to move on from this line of thinking since there is so much more to the K-5 than you seem to be willing to appreciate.
09-24-2010, 02:05 PM   #29
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: New York
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 388
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
You are quite seriously misinformed, and gullible - sorry to say.
Go found out for yourself what the difference is between these two cams.
High ISO performance is NOT the be-all-and-end-all of important features in a camera.
Misinformed and gullible you say? What is with the insults from you guys? Yeah I know the K-7 is more feature rich then lets say a D40. That was not my point. I know the differences, I was just a Little surprised that its noise control was at the level of a 500 dollar camera, sorry if I hurt your feelings. I know ISO is not the only important feature but since this came out way after the D40 and retailed for more I honestly thought that it would have had better noise control.

Man, calm down.

QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
There is no fanboyism here, simply a reaction to a pretty fanciful claim that has no merit
No merit? are you even reading this thread? Someone already explained how its not much better then the D40 with noise from what I can gather. Again I was talking about the K-7, yeah I know the K-5 is probably tons better then the D40 but again, I was not comparing these, for the last time, I am not comparing the D40 and K-5!

Also the fanboy comment was not at you, so stop acting so defensive, when someone replies to a whole post with "your funny" that Just seems like a fanboyish thing to do.
09-27-2010, 06:46 AM   #30
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: New York
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 388
Original Poster
Ok please no more fighting, I just wanted to ask about this, it seems that the K-7 keeps more detail then the D300 and thats the reason for the noise, I found this thread:

pentax k7 vs d300 at iso 3200: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

And honestly after been put through noise ninja they seem almost identical(The blacks look nicer on the K-7 to me) which leads me to believe they are at the same calibur, its just that the K-7 lets YOU decide on the detail/noise ratio. Opinions? Is this an accurate example you think?
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, dslr, k-5, k-5 ii, k-5 iis, k5, noise, pentax k-5
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
SR noise in K-x Hemi345 Video and Pentax HDSLRs 3 02-17-2011 09:17 PM
Noise Nubi Pentax DSLR Discussion 30 06-28-2010 02:17 PM
Another.....K-7 noise..... the swede Pentax DSLR Discussion 11 10-17-2009 02:57 AM
Noise Simon23 Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 6 05-12-2009 08:03 AM
cs3 noise filter vs. noise ninja vs. ??? reknelb Pentax DSLR Discussion 0 03-04-2008 04:55 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:23 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top