[pinholecam]

Have you ever dropped a camera? The issues you have to worry about are really not the frame, they are the internal workings and electronics of the camera. None of that stuff will be cheap to fix with Pentax or Nikon and neither company will cover the repair once they figure out that you dropped it. The question is what about normal wear and tear, dust, humidity, etc that you experience on the trail.

Currently, as far as I can tell, Pentax offers the DA 18-55 WR, 50-200 WR, DA 18-135 WR, DA * 16-50, DA * 50-135, DA * 200, DA * 300, D FA WR 100, and DA *55 lenses that are weather sealed. They range significantly in price of course, from the 18-55 which sells used for 115 dollars to the top end lenses that sell for 1300 dollars.

Nikon's cheapest normal zoom with sealing is the 17-55 which sells for about 1300 dollars and is a very nice lens, but also lacks IS for that price. Of course, according to Nikon, you don't need IS for shorter lenses, so you'll be OK.

Exactly! I'm with you on this one.
In the touch wood situation that the camera drops on a tour or in the middle of nowhere. I'd be more concerned about it still working and giving me shots and not giving me a double whammy of dropped camera and no shots for holiday/expedition. Of course I'd still swear

A

At this point, my plan is to get the K-5 body in 3-4 weeks and just stick with my K-X 18-55mm kit lens until the following month. Then I'll probably pick up the 18-55 WR and 50-200mm WR unless the 18-135 WR actually turns out being worth the hefty price. Then the following month I'll look at getting one or two lenses like the 50mm 1.4 or 1.7, etc.

One thing I'm not looking forward to is the fact that the K-5 will need the base grip attachment so I can use AAs with it. I loved that the K-X used AAs and I bought a bunch of eneloops so I'd like to be able to keep using those. $200 for the base grip is kinda *ouch though, lol.

Good on ya!

Seems like you've already made up your mind.
I'd just like to add the following pros to a K5.

1. On camera SR w/o more expensive, cumbersome and heavier lenses. Think about how much more space and weight you need to lug around with a Nikon system.
2. Some budget WR lenses for outdoor use (not just expensive 'pro' level stuff)
3. Excellent small and light primes if you want to go this route.
4. On camera auto aligned HDR for more possibilities
5. ISO80 for landscapes, low/dim light work with tripod and as a work around the max flash sync speed of 1/180.
6. Very much well (enough) documented ISO performance from all the pixel peeping; RAW samples; 100% crops; analysis that has been shown so far for the K5.
7. AF performance that is very much improved over the old Pentax bodies. (I dare say its night and day now)
8. 5 exposure, extended bracketing

[Kirivon]

At this point, my plan is to get the K-5 body in 3-4 weeks and just stick with my K-X 18-55mm kit lens until the following month. Then I'll probably pick up the 18-55 WR and 50-200mm WR unless the 18-135 WR actually turns out being worth the hefty price. Then the following month I'll look at getting one or two lenses like the 50mm 1.4 or 1.7, etc.

Honestly I'm a little confused as to why you feel you need to pay the brand-new camera premium on the K-5. Pretty much the only two needs you've identified are mirror slap and weather sealing. You can get this in either the K20D or K-7. The K-x already has one of the best APS-C sensors on the market, so if you're somehow expecting your pictures to be any better you'll probably be disappointed.

As for the lenses the 18-55mm is decent, but the 50-200mm just isn't that good. For the price of a K-5 right now and a 18-55/50-200WR setup you could get a used K20D, 16-50 f/2.8, and 50-135 f/2.8. Ultimately, the quality of glass has the biggest impact on the quality of the images produced. The difference is that in two years, the 16-50 and 50-135 will still be good and selling for the same (if not more) amount of money, whereas the K-5 will superseded by a new body and selling for $500 on the marketplace.

[Eruditass]

I like the idea of having dual SD slots but I'm not sure it will really be all that useful.

Advantages are a bit diminished since all the super high density SD cards. Main advantages are:

- cheaper smaller cards
- less photos lost if one does or is lost
- ability to switch cards at your leisure when nearing full. e.g. if you are at an event and have 20 shots left, but something important might be coming up, you have to weigh the pros/cons. With 2 you can switch at for-sure downtime.
- larger videos due to 4gb fat limit.

I like shooting fast moving things so a faster shooting camera sounds better but will 1fps make much of a difference (especially for a non-pro)?
You should look at videos comparing 7fps vs 6fps, or something around that to get an idea. It's hard to comprehend 7fps vs 6fps, but it may help in capturing key moments, not sure. All I know is from 4.7 fps to 7 fps is a big jump. It may help to think of it as 60 frames vs 70 frames in 10 seconds?

As a (semi-) beginner looking for a solid upgrade from the K-X, is $400 worth the marginal difference? I know most of you are biased towards Pentax (I have plenty of other people telling me the D7000 is better) so I'd like to get some input on why I'd be better of choosing the K-5 over the D7000.

For a while I thought the D7000 bested the K-5. On paper, I'd say definitely. However, K-5's iso looks spectacular, and at the same time, D7000 was discovered to be just a bit better than the D90 in terms of AF-tracking/prediction, but not up to the D300 level. I'd like to see a shootout in some AF tests between the two, to see if Pentax is actually near Nikon this time around.

And before anybody asks, video isn't that important to me but AF tracking is kind of nice, just not as important as photo related features.

Also, the K-X has a ridiculously loud mirror slap. The K-5 seems to be pretty quiet from what I've seen in videos but any time I'm standing next to Nikon owners, theirs seem so quiet. The K-X is so loud my cats wake up! Will the K-5 vs the D7000 have much difference in this area?

Thanks everyone!

I assume the K-5 will be quieter than the D7000.

Try to hold and try them both out (or at least the K-7, which has a similar sound and ergonomics).

That all said, I would upgrade lenses :-p

[Rory]

Yes, you'll be able to use lenses on both the Kx and K5. I mulled over what I want to do when I get money together. Switch to Canon or stay Pentax. The lenses alone are what is keeping me with Pentax. Canon has some great glass; however, it's at a mega-premium. I realize that it's not an exact comparison, but look at the 31 Limited compared with the 35L. The 31 Limited is a very highly regarded lens, that, when it boils down to it, outperforms the 35L. Yet you can realistically get a used 31 for $900. Good luck with finding a 35L for that money.

Add to the fact that, while Pentax seems to be developing a niche market with the Kx/Kr contingent, they still seem to be advancing their top-end prosumer line. The K5, from what has been seen, is a good improvement over the K7. It makes me confident that something great will be down the line, as the previous two bodies seemed to be small, but noticable improvements before the K7 revamp. I can't wait to see the model after the K5.

[jremick]

Honestly I'm a little confused as to why you feel you need to pay the brand-new camera premium on the K-5. Pretty much the only two needs you've identified are mirror slap and weather sealing. You can get this in either the K20D or K-7. The K-x already has one of the best APS-C sensors on the market, so if you're somehow expecting your pictures to be any better you'll probably be disappointed.

As for the lenses the 18-55mm is decent, but the 50-200mm just isn't that good. For the price of a K-5 right now and a 18-55/50-200WR setup you could get a used K20D, 16-50 f/2.8, and 50-135 f/2.8. Ultimately, the quality of glass has the biggest impact on the quality of the images produced. The difference is that in two years, the 16-50 and 50-135 will still be good and selling for the same (if not more) amount of money, whereas the K-5 will superseded by a new body and selling for $500 on the marketplace.

It doesn't make sense to me to upgrade to the K-7 or K20D from the K-X for the price. Scratching the idea of upgrading the camera body all together and purchasing really nice glass instead (for the K-X) does make sense to me though. But then I'll be missing out on a whole lot of features (faster FPS, AF, weather sealing, mag. alloy construction, etc) that I want.

I could wait and get the K-5 when the price drops, but I'll be honest, I'm impatient and I don't want to wait. The month I get the K-5 (just the body) I'll just use my K-X's 18-55mm, then the following month I'll invest in other lenses starting by replacing the 18-55mm with the WR version. Then I'll add something for more reach as long as it's WR and under $1K.

So basically, over the next 3 months I'm looking at a budget of around $4K. That should be plenty for me to get the K-5 and some nice glass right?

[twitch]

Yeah, but skip the 18-55 WR and the 50-200WR. Spend the money on the K-5, DA*16-50 & DA*50-135 (that should be $3k so far), and then a limited prime or 2 with the change from $4k. Say the DA15 and the FA43. Or a DFA 100 WR Macro if you are into marco.

[Urkeldaedalus]

So basically, over the next 3 months I'm looking at a budget of around $4K. That should be plenty for me to get the K-5 and some nice glass right?

$4,000? You could get a lot of great lenses for that amount of money even subtracting the full K-5 body price.

I like your plan of using the camera with the 18-55 for a little bit though. Figure out what that lens can't do that you want from another lens, then you'll know what lens you need to buy to fill the hole in your lens lineup. I'd also wait to see if the 18-135 WR turns out to be good, as it looks to be the perfect lens for hiking -- small for such a large zoom range, silent autofocus, and potentially better IQ than the kit lenses. The new 35 f/2.4 lens also looks like an inexpensive little gem that could give you a taste for prime lenses.

To answer your question about the K-5 mirror slap, it's the quietest I have ever heard in a camera I've tried, even quieter than the K-7 which I also love. I like it when I show my K-7 to pro Canon shooters and they always talk about how quiet the camera is-- that and the great ergonomics get the most comments.

---

Last edited by Urkeldaedalus; 10-20-2010 at 09:36 PM.

[jremick]

Yeah, but skip the 18-55 WR and the 50-200WR. Spend the money on the K-5, DA*16-50 & DA*50-135 (that should be $3k so far), and then a limited prime or 2 with the change from $4k. Say the DA15 and the FA43. Or a DFA 100 WR Macro if you are into marco.

Gotcha. The DA* lenses are obviously better but are they really that much better that they justify the huge price increase for someone like me?

[Rory]

Gotcha. The DA* lenses are obviously better but are they really that much better that they justify the huge price increase for someone like me?

Well, you have the faster aperture and higher IQ. If you're worried so much about IQ that you would upgrade to a K5 over a Kx, I would say you would want to upgrade the glass as well.

[twitch]

Yes I think so.

If you are sceptical then why not get the K-5 with 18-55WR in a kit, and then buy or hire the DA*50-135 f2.8 or the DA*60-250, and then you'll know for yourself if it's worthwhile.

[robgo2]

From my point of view, in-camera SR trumps anything the D7000 can offer. Buying Nikon VR lenses will very quickly erase the price advantage of the Nikon camera.

Rob

[Urkeldaedalus]

Gotcha. The DA* lenses are obviously better but are they really that much better that they justify the huge price increase for someone like me?

Depends on what you use the lenses for and what images you want to get out of them. I think one thing the 18-55 WR and 50-200 WR have going for them for your purposes is they are smaller and lighter than their DA* counterparts. You could buy those for hiking and then spend some of the rest of your budget on some high quality lenses to improve your image quality.

If you want to rent lenses to try them out first, here's a website I've used in the past to do so:

CameraLensRentals.com - Canon, Nikon and Pentax Lens Rentals.

[jremick]

Well, you have the faster aperture and higher IQ. If you're worried so much about IQ that you would upgrade to a K5 over a Kx, I would say you would want to upgrade the glass as well.

My interest in higher IQ is over the long term, other features like weather sealing, faster FPS, faster AF, etc. are my short term interests (my "geekery").

Yes I think so.

If you are sceptical then why not get the K-5 with 18-55WR in a kit, and then buy or hire the DA*50-135 f2.8 or the DA*60-250, and then you'll know for yourself if it's worthwhile.

I'll see if I can rent a couple of these DA* lenses and have some fun with them with the K-X before I get the K-5.

[Kini62]

I just faced a similar situation. I didn't need all the weight and size of my canon 1d and the L lenses anymore. I was looking at the K5 and D7k as well. The nikon came out quite bit less but didn't have in body IS or the sealing or the lenses I wanted. So I ordered the K5 kit with the 18-55wr since that was all that was available. I'll probably make use of it for a while until I decide what I want for a walk around.
I also ordered the 55/1.4 and the 50-135. I can't wait to try them out. They have a lot to live up to.
Gene

[hawk1500]

There's really no point in getting a K-5 or the D7000 if you're just going to use the kit lens with them. I mean, your K-x is way more than enough if you don't really plan on getting the DA* or the limited lenses.