[normhead]

Looking at the DxO specs for the two cameras, most of us would be asking, what kind of lens can I get for the price difference? I agree with the above poster in that, when I put on my fisheye lens 10-17 lens, I'm looking for a niche shot to spice up a series of photos, very rarely are those shots in any way useful on their own. It's a nice compliment.

The difference in printing on these two cameras will not be noticeable. I don't think the human eye can detect the difference between 180 dpi and 220 dpi, not to mention that depending on your printer, it may end up printing at the same DPI anyway. When you talk about resolution you have to decide what is adequate for your needs. Are you really going to be printing a lot of 16x24 images?

My printer goes to 19x13. The lowest print resolution I usually consider is 150 dpi. I've had good results at 125 , but for some reason I try and stay higher. I'll reconsider when I see see research that says people can tell the difference from 3 feet away, because I can't. My old Optio W10 had 2000 pixels width and I have some great prints taken with it. The K-5 will print 33in by 21in at 150 dpi. If I need more than that, I doubt moving to the Canon 5D MkII is going to solve my problem. I'm thinking the next stop after 20 x30 is likely to be 48 by something, and the Canon doesn't get me there at 150 dpi. It gets me to 37 inches. You don't have to like the numbers I'm using, but for examples sake, it gives you the logic behind why I don't care much about the difference in size. For my shooting my K20D does fine.

So that brings us to the main difference as I see it, the K-5s extended Dynamic Range. I carry a range of zoom lenses from 10 to 300 mm so I don't worry much about the smaller sensor. I rarely like pictures shot less than about 14 mm unless the scene is such that it masks the distortion. The biggest issue for me is dynamic range. I've had more shots rendered useless by insufficient dynamic range than any other issue, even when bracketing. In some of those cases I could have gone HDR, but shooting something moving, like water, there can be issues, time consuming issues. The K-5 should have a clear advantage in Dynamic range.

So for me the issue comes down to, do I need that extra 12% resolution. I don't care on the sensor size issue, it's completely compensated for by the lenses you buy, and the smaller sensor extends the range of long lenses, so it's a six of one, half dozen of the other, the Pentax has a tighter pixel pitch, so it really does give you more pixel output using the same lens. I don't need the extra resolution, although some people might. The Pentax has better dynamic range at least in the DxO labs, which is a real plus in landscape where the contrast of natural light can be as much as 5000:1. And the Canon is 3 times the price, the difference being enough to buy me a really nice lens.

I really don't see why you'd buy the Canon, unless of course there's a Canon lens you have a preference for. Some old advice for camera purchasers, "Find a lens you like and buy the body that goes with it." So I'm not even sure you're barking up the right tree. Arguing about lens sharpness is pretty much a non-issue for the landscape artist. You have to ask, how many landscapes have I had ruined because the lens wasn't sharp enough. The minute differences may be important if you're shooting in a studio under controlled light. But I'm willing to bet, in landscape, a little bit of loss in detail around the edges? People sell painting that have almost no detail. No where near that of any camera. In landscape the overall splashes of colour and composition are more important than microscopic edge detail. The key thing here is finding a lens you like. That could become a full time job in itself for a month or two.

[Canada_Rockies]

Care to share the exif of the image, just my curiosity

Exposure: 1/80 Sec at f/11
Focal Length: 12 mm
Exposure Bias: 0 EV
ISO 125
Program: Aperture priority
Metering: Pattern

[philbaum]

You've picked up on an achilles in the limited system - no sealing. Personally, while I am (certainly) no pro, I have challenged the K-7 and 21/40mm to rain and snow (with associated very cold temperatures) in travel and hiking, and can report no issues. This may be due to the very tight build tolerances and metal construction of the limited series. There is also not a lot of lens protruding out for the water to hit (especially with the 40mm).
I have heard others here, who have used rubber bands around the lens mount to further prevent water incursion, with good success.

You do have the option of using the DA* 55mm, which is sealed. Depends on your FL requirements.

I too had a DS first up. The K-5/K-7 is a bit bigger than that, but still very portable with a couple of limiteds along for the ride.

I would aknowledge that it would be better to have WR lenses in the pancake variety than not, but i've a variety of lenses in rain/snow and not had a problem. If i'm in the rain and have an unsealed lens, i carry a small cloth to drape over the lens or to remove any standing water from the lens. I had a large zoom, the 18-250 that i used in the rain occasionally, and would assure that i removed any standing water before winding in those long tubes. I believe that its far better to have a sealed body than a sealed lens, harder to protect a body than a lens. Also there are plastic sleeves that can be used to protect lenses.

From a photographic view, it only takes one water droplet on a lens face to ruin a series of pictures. I like using my 50-135 when it rains, the long hood on that zoom does a marvelous job of keeping rain off the outer glass, provided one doesn't point it up at the sky :-) For a good "wet" capable lens, make sure it has a good hood to keep the rain off the glass.

[Clarkey]

Good point regarding the water drop. I posted this previously, where I had a timelapse ruined by snow. As I mentioned in my other post, I was very careful to warm things slowly and carefully remove water with a cloth. Mind you, I don't think it would have mattered how long the hood was in my case.....

Oh, I already uploaded the pic. So here is the thread link:

---

Last edited by Clarkey; 01-08-2011 at 06:57 PM. Reason: image

[Canada_Rockies]

I am so anal about keeping the front of the lens down in wet situations that I have to clean off the eyepiece fairly often. Those big lens hoods impress the yokels, but are really very good to use for many reasons, not the least keeping seagull droppings off the front element. Fellow coastal natives will know whereof I speak.

[Emacs]

I shoot with a Canon 5D MKII and have been considering the Pentax K5 since it came out. I take only landscape photographs, always at base ISO and print up to 16x24".

My first DSLR was a Pentax IstDs, which was great for it's simplicity. I'm hoping Pentax have retained that simplicity in their newer models. Another factor I love, since I walk a lot with equipment, is the small size and light weight.

What I really want to know is what people think about the image quality difference. Since DXO posted their sensor score results we can see that the K5 has a greater dynamic range than the 5D MKII. How would overall image quality compare though?

Do you think the K5 would be as good as the 5D MKII at 16x24" prints?

1) The DR is excellent indeed. The Pentax DA 15Ltd lens is very good too, although I don't know how it compares with excellent CZ Distagon T* 21 (I find other wide angle canon lenses sucks compared to that zeiss).
2) The sharpness on APS-C is objectively worse than on FF.

The DR of 5d mkII sucks so I wouldn't recommend it to anyone for that purpose. IMO the best choice for landscape shooting in 135 format is Nikon D3X with CZ Distagon T* 21.

[Anth.M]

my view on photography:

1% body...
9% Lenses...
90% the photographer.

refine your skill and constantly practice. A Pentax K2 (circa 1975) can probably take better photos than a 5DII...provided the 90% behind the camera has refined their skill...through constant practice and hard work at it

[Usuqa]

I went for a d3 to a k5, the image quality of the k5 is better than the d3 imho, sharper, more resolution, better dynamic range.. As for pushing and pulling details the k5 is even better than the d3 again (the d3 comes into banding well before the k5 dose.) but it dose lack the DoF options that the d3 gave you being FF.

While I know you have the 5dmII and not a nikon, I thought you would like to hear my thoughts.

The k5 is a wonderful camera, and for landscapes im sure you will love it. Another feature you probably didn't consider is the sensor shift. I love it when using a fish eye as I can keep the horizontal line straight while moving it down the frame... Something that could be useful to you when using other lens i guess?

[Ash]

Ben, the high ISO gallery on the forum presents a number of images and their 100% crops at ISO 12800 and 25600 that show the K-5 to retain decent detail in their photos. The 5D MkII is older technology now and has to be expected not to perform as well as from the more modern sensors. Nevertheless the 5D MkII is still a good camera, and although difficult to compare with the K-5 holds up pretty well by virtue of the extra resolution and being FF.