Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-18-2010, 07:32 AM   #1
Forum Member
bushwhacker09's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Blue Ridge Parkway
Posts: 66
K-7 vs. K-5

After reading all of the comparisons between these two cameras, I feel like it might be a waste of time to upgrade from the K-7. Unless the K-5's autofocus is a quantum leap above that of the K-7, what would drive someone to upgrade? Please convince me otherwise, since I have such an aversion to keeping my money.

11-18-2010, 07:45 AM   #2
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Umeň, Sweden
Posts: 755
Well, for starters, the sensor doesn't struggle above ISO 800.
11-18-2010, 08:22 AM   #3
Veteran Member
dgaies's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Maryland / Washington DC
Posts: 3,917
The increase in high ISO performance (as Erik mentioned) is probably the greatest difference between the two cameras. There is certainly an increase in AF performance as well, but I don't know if I'd go so far as to say it was a quantum leap above the K-7.

Last edited by dgaies; 11-18-2010 at 09:50 AM.
11-18-2010, 08:54 AM   #4
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 337
Yeah, it seems to be incremental improvements, rather than huge improvements. Better high ISO, better AF, better video. As far as upgrading from the K-7 to the K-5, it would be a tough call for me, as I'd like the improvements, but not sure if it would be worth the hassle and price difference. But in my case, looking at the K-7 and K-5 head to head, coming from the K200D, and being able to afford the K-5, I chose the K-5. To take the K-7 form factor, with all of the features and customization of the K-7, but with a better sensor and better high ISO, and with better AF (even if just a bit better), was enough to sway me towards the K-5. But upgrading from the K-7 would be a tough call.

11-18-2010, 09:11 AM   #5
Veteran Member
pcarfan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dayton, Ohio
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,958
K-7 is an incredible camera, especially the ergonomics, which makes the picture making process so much fun. The K-5 keeps this big advantage intact and offers me two more practical things (both related) that the K-7 couldn't do as well, and thus I will eventually switch to the K-5.

First, the low light performance. It can focus in dimmer light and the high iso performance makes available light shooting a breeze. This will help in some of my shooting.

Then the large DR and the possibility to pull out details from the shadow without introducing much noise or color issues. This will help me a great deal.

These two are practical advantges. I am also glad the AF-C is improved, which I use as well.

These changes will actually make a difference in my photography and that makes it worthwhile for me to upgrade from the K-7.
11-18-2010, 10:16 AM   #6
Veteran Member
cbaytan's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Trabzon/Turkey
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,010
QuoteOriginally posted by bushwhacker09 Quote
After reading all of the comparisons between these two cameras, I feel like it might be a waste of time to upgrade from the K-7. Unless the K-5's autofocus is a quantum leap above that of the K-7, what would drive someone to upgrade? Please convince me otherwise, since I have such an aversion to keeping my money.
I am in the same position like you but, 1-AF 2-High ISO noise 3-DR
are definitely are the superior points of the K-5, but the juice, I mean the IQ superiority on base ISO? Still debatable, I am waiting to see more samples of K-5 that will convince me for an upgrade either. Just a little patience will work I guess.
11-18-2010, 10:30 AM   #7
Forum Member
bushwhacker09's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Blue Ridge Parkway
Posts: 66
Original Poster
I really haven't been disappointed with the K-7's ISO 1600 and below performance--guess I'll wait & see if the K-5's ISO 6400 is really a big step forward. I do quite a bit of available light shooting as well, so who knows...
11-18-2010, 10:32 AM   #8
Veteran Member
dgaies's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Maryland / Washington DC
Posts: 3,917
QuoteOriginally posted by bushwhacker09 Quote
I really haven't been disappointed with the K-7's ISO 1600 and below performance--guess I'll wait & see if the K-5's ISO 6400 is really a big step forward. I do quite a bit of available light shooting as well, so who knows...
I would say the K-5 ISO 6400 is about on par with the K-7 ISO 1600.

11-18-2010, 11:12 AM   #9
Veteran Member
pcarfan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dayton, Ohio
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,958
QuoteOriginally posted by dgaies Quote
I would say the K-5 ISO 6400 is about on par with the K-7 ISO 1600.
I needed f2 and iso 1600 for indoor shooting with the K-7 and thus the dof suffered. With the k-5, I should be able to use iso 6400 and f4, which would be nice.
11-18-2010, 11:18 AM   #10
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Iowa
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,368
QuoteOriginally posted by pcarfan Quote
I needed f2 and iso 1600 for indoor shooting with the K-7 and thus the dof suffered. With the k-5, I should be able to use iso 6400 and f4, which would be nice.
With the K-5, I was able to use the 300 mm f/4 with a 1/640 shutter speed at ISO 6400 while I was covering a recent football game. It really does open up some additional possibilities.

To the original poster, if you like your K-7 and don't need better continuous autofocus or high ISO performance, I would agree that you should probably wait on upgrading.
11-18-2010, 03:34 PM   #11
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bronx NY
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,599
QuoteOriginally posted by bushwhacker09 Quote

*snip

Please convince me otherwise, since I have such an aversion to keeping my money.
Bushwacker, I am taking a personal pledge to keep you happy. I personally do not see any compelling reason for you to upgrade from the K-7. Unfortunately there seems to be a problem with this as you have an aversion to keeping money. In that case I will unselfishly and willingly sacrifice myself to your happiness. Since you have an aversion to keeping it, (I understand, after all it is the root of all evil) you should send the $1600 to me and I will make sure that it goes to a good cause. This way you will be happy, and your happiness will make me happy.

NaCl(sometimes I'm such a good guy I scare myself)H2O
11-18-2010, 03:50 PM   #12
Veteran Member
Tommot1965's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Perth Western Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,026
QuoteOriginally posted by dgaies Quote
I would say the K-5 ISO 6400 is about on par with the K-7 ISO 1600.
Id have to disagree with that, all the test images Ive seen so far have the K5 only one stop better than the K7 , eg K5 at ISO 6400 is more equal to a K7 ISO 3200... defiantly not a K7 at ISO 1600...both bodies above 6400{k7] and 12800{k5} are not good and for me no real use


i was in the same quandary as the OP...but after poring over samples taken by review sites such as DP and Image Resource and not looking at IQ, but rather the Noise versus ISO settings. im now keeping my K7 and will be looking at better glass. I really don't see a huge leap forward in the K5 as far as Noise handling goes to warrant the change...

if the K5 shot at ISO 3200 and was equal to a K7 at ISO 400...then Id have the money on the table...but despite what is being touted as a Huge difference, is really not the case....

Better AF is always a plus, as is better DR and Noise reduction at high ISO...but if you own a K7 I really believe your better off getting better lenses rather than a K5 as the differences are not huge..unless of course money is not object..then get the K5..LOL
11-18-2010, 04:08 PM   #13
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Kaunas
Posts: 1,452
K-7 high ISO suffers not only from noise (K-5 is approximately 1,5 stop better in this regard) but also K-7 high iso drops DR to non acceptable level. Darker tones are completely black, washed out, etc. K-5 does not suffer from this. You still retain all the details in dark tones. The combined result of better noice performance and much better DR in high ISO shots makes K-5 images clearly superior in overall IQ.
11-18-2010, 04:28 PM   #14
Veteran Member
pcarfan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dayton, Ohio
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,958
Tommot1965
I think you are right in saying that K-7 iso 1600 is better than the K-5 iso 6400. I checked the "Imaging resource" shots and the K-7 at iso 1600 is significantly better.

But, no one really claimed K-5 iso 3200 to be as good as K-7 iso 400 (that is a 3 stops). Actually the advantage diminishes with lower iso's , so if the high iso advantage is less than two stops at lower iso's it would be even less,

K-5 does indeed have a huge amount fo detail in the shadows, but that alone may not be enough of an advantage for me to upgrade. I was really hoping that I could use iso 6400 as well as iso 1600 with the K-7 and that doesn't seem to be the case here
11-18-2010, 04:31 PM   #15
Veteran Member
Tommot1965's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Perth Western Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,026
Edvinas

yes it is superior..no question..but is that enough to warrant a upgrade as the OP asks?

...ive spent quite some time pixel peeping the test images at image resources....and i really cant see the that K5 is that much better....the washed out DR at High ISO is equivalent on both bodies at respected ISo

eg the K5 is just as bad at ISO 3200 as the K7 is at ISO 1600....and anything above 6400 or 12800 on both bodies is pretty woeful

so I vote keep our K7........I am

---------- Post added 19-11-10 at 07:44 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by pcarfan Quote
Tommot1965
I think you are right in saying that K-7 iso 1600 is better than the K-5 iso 6400. I checked the "Imaging resource" shots and the K-7 at iso 1600 is significantly better.

But, no one really claimed K-5 iso 3200 to be as good as K-7 iso 400 (that is a 3 stops). Actually the advantage diminishes with lower iso's , so if the high iso advantage is less than two stops at lower iso's it would be even less,

K-5 does indeed have a huge amount fo detail in the shadows, but that alone may not be enough of an advantage for me to upgrade. I was really hoping that I could use iso 6400 as well as iso 1600 with the K-7 and that doesn't seem to be the case here
that's true I may have been carried away with ISO 400=ISO 3200...

but at the same time I've read many posts on this very forum saying how great the K5 was at ISO 25600..giving us K7 owners the belief that the K5 was indeed better by at least 3 stops at the High ISO end....eg the 25600 was as good as the K7 at ISO 1600 { the last ISO setting for me that's usable on a k7} .. that's clearly not so..

the K5 picks up where the K7 left off...and from a Pentax perspective a necessary upgrade to stay competitive with the competition, after all no ones going to buy a K7 with a D7000 clearly better than it....but and heres the BIG But...if you have already bought into the pentax brand with a K7 purchase..then for us..the upgrade path is less clear...unless you must have the latest and slightly better product,

Im going to wait until the K3 is truly three stops better than the K7..that will have me running to the store with cash in hand...
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, k-7, k5, pentax k-5
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:50 AM. | 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