[Tommot1965]

im gonna chime my twos bobs worth here..

and pose the question other way round..D7000 as a Pentax K5 alternative..


I've just got home form my local shop...and have been testing another K5 for low light AF issues.. that's a whole other story...

anyway, while there I looked at the D7000 as a alternative to my K5...and just on feel alone..it didn't cut it...it felt cheap and quite nasty ...not a patch on the K5 build quality..

I didn't like it one bit...so for me....Im keeping the pentax

[Frogfish]

I was in the local camera shop. They didn't have the K-5, but a K-7 which I think is nearly as quiet as the K-5. It is quiet, by comparison, by comparison the Nikon D700 sounded like two cymbals being crashed together. You could easily shoot the Pentax at a school play or similar and not annoy those around you. The D7000 was quieter than the 700, but not as quiet as the K-7. I'd be too self conscious to shoot the D700 for more than one frame at a school play.

I have both the K5 & K7 and after seeing your post I got them both out and tried a dozen shots on each (each shot at virtually the same time in MF). The K7 is slightly higher pitched than the K5 - but in absolute decibels I would be hard pressed to say there is any difference.

[redrockcoulee]

I went from a nikon d3 with some of the older f2.8 lens to the k5.

Image quality wise the k5 is better imho, lower iso with major ability to push shadows and high iso thats very similar. Higher resolution (altho you need better lens to get that, the d3/d700 can get away with lower quality optics because its pixel pitch is so big).

In body stabilization is great(works in video to), my nikon lens were non vr.

Exposure compensation is another feature people seem to miss that's only on pentax k5/k7.

.
.

I would be interested in an expansion of the K5 being better than the D3. My only experience with the D3 was my wife using it and a Fuji GX680 for a project with large prints (60X80 inches) and the Fuji with Portra 160 film and Nikon scanner blew the D3 and14-24 lens out of the water. We are planning on picking up a K5 late spring or early summer and the D3 I can borrow most anytime but still am curious.

Thanks

[masloff]

Well, as a topic starter, I must admit that the choise between K5, d300 or d7000 is solved by...

yes, you knew it! It`s the K5! Using that little beast is something like UFO technology - it`s very fascinating, well-built and fun to use! IQ is hard to beat, and this is the DSLR I really-really like!

Thanks Pentax!

[Tommot1965]

Well, as a topic starter, I must admit that the choise between K5, d300 or d7000 is solved by...

yes, you knew it! It`s the K5! Using that little beast is something like UFO technology - it`s very fascinating, well-built and fun to use! IQ is hard to beat, and this is the DSLR I really-really like!

Thanks Pentax!

Nice one..IMHO you have made the right choice...

[JeremyP]

I've just got home form my local shop...and have been testing another K5 for low light AF issues.. that's a whole other story...

Tommot1965, what did you find out in your K-5 low light AF testing?

[Tommot1965]

Tommot1965, what did you find out in your K-5 low light AF testing?

i found that with my HSM 17-50 Sigma..it would constantly front focus in low light at the wide end {17mm}
I also tried a pentax SDM lens , same issue..but using a screw drive primes..no problems at all...all up I tired 4 different lenses and three showed FF and only the screw drive prime was on the money .

Im afraid I returned the camera..it was my second body with the same issue ....I ended up with a nikon D300s..lol...

I do miss that K5 though.. button placement is so much better IMHO than the D300s..but for me the Af issues were too much..the Nikon in the same circumstances was spot on.....I also wanted a excellent 70-200F2.8 with TC ...another reason to go Nikon..all of these factors were the reason I made the switch

[JeremyP]

Tommot1965: What kind of low light situations were you shooting in? I'm looking at the K-5 to shoot sports in gymnasiums and hockey rinks. Not sure if this is considered "low light" or not.

I am an amatuer, so try not to be too technical with any answers.

[JohnBee]

- Should I really consider k5 as an upgrade path from d80 (I don`t mind jumping the ship and sell mine Nikon gear at all)?

I'm going to be the rebel here and say that I think(based on evaluation) that the D7000 offers the best IQ detail wise at nominal sensitivities out of all the 16mp camera's.

I don't know how much this means to you(or not) but I thought I'd throw that out there anyways.
The summary is that K-5, D7000 and Sony A-55 all use the same sensor, however, out of the three, the D7000 seems to extrapolate the most detail. After which the Sony A-55 seems to come in second and the K-5 third.

How big a deal is this? Well... I think it really actually comes down to ones personal scrutiny, but from what I can gather, the D7000 and A-55 both have weaker AA filters and so they get an edge on detail at the expense of Moire. And I guess it's worth mentioning that too(don't want to mislead anyone). However... in some cases, the added detail can be of huge importance to people especially as sensitivities rise and the detail gets easily washed away as a result of noise.

Aside form that the K-5 has the best high ISO performance of the bunch too.
And so again... were looking at shuffling figures so it really comes down to what matters most I guess.

Well that about does it for that.
PS. let me know if you're interested in some comparison images of the differences, otherwise... these are my personal observations on matters.

JohnB

[philbaum]

I'm going to be the rebel here and say that I think(based on evaluation) that the D7000 offers the best IQ detail wise at nominal sensitivities out of all the 16mp camera's.

I don't know how much this means to you(or not) but I thought I'd throw that out there anyways.
The summary is that K-5, D7000 and Sony A-55 all use the same sensor, however, out of the three, the D7000 seems to extrapolate the most detail. After which the Sony A-55 seems to come in second and the K-5 third.

How big a deal is this? Well... I think it really actually comes down to ones personal scrutiny, but from what I can gather, the D7000 and A-55 both have weaker AA filters and so they get an edge on detail at the expense of Moire. And I guess it's worth mentioning that too(don't want to mislead anyone). However... in some cases, the added detail can be of huge importance to people especially as sensitivities rise and the detail gets easily washed away as a result of noise.

Aside form that the K-5 has the best high ISO performance of the bunch too.
And so again... were looking at shuffling figures so it really comes down to what matters most I guess.

Well that about does it for that.
PS. let me know if you're interested in some comparison images of the differences, otherwise... these are my personal observations on matters.

JohnB

Dpreview K5 Review:

Even with noise reduction set to zero there's hardly any gain in detail (compared to the out of camera JPEGs) in the RAW conversions. Thanks to the camera's comparatively weak AA filter the Pentax K-5 produces very good detail in both JPEG and RAW image modes.

On the Dpreview Nikon D7000 Forum today, within the first 15 threads or is one reporting focusing problems on a D7000 to the extent that the owner also bought a D5100 which he explains has none.

A few threads later is a thread complaining about oil spots with halos on his D7000 and another poster on the thread said "me too". I don't suppose we'll ever know the whole story on the sensor stains.

I'm so glad i've made my purchase and can go back to enjoying my K5. They're both good cameras with their pros and cons. and perhaps both were rushed to market before all the bugs were worked out.

[JohnBee]

Dpreview K5 Review:

I read that too, very interesting.
However... I also think the differences are very minute(though notable) and in most cases there if you know what to look for. And I'd agree that it could be called negligible. Which is why I mentioned it would be subjective. However at the same time, the D7000 does gain considerable ground at the low level NR point(ISO2200) against the K-5. Which is an interesting phenomenon as well, but I didn't go into it because it can be rather specific. Though if I had to summarize, I'd say that D7000 likely has a detail advantage between ISO2200 and 5000 due to low level NR. But I never really did any hard core comparisons.

On the Dpreview Nikon D7000 Forum today, within the first 15 threads or is one reporting focusing problems on a D7000 to the extent that the owner also bought a D5100 which he explains has none.

A few threads later is a thread complaining about oil spots with halos on his D7000 and another poster on the thread said "me too". I don't suppose we'll ever know the whole story on the sensor stains.

I'm so glad i've made my purchase and can go back to enjoying my K5. They're both good cameras with their pros and cons. and perhaps both were rushed to market before all the bugs were worked out.

I too read on the stain issues in the D7000 forums.
Though did you notice how they(stains) looked different?
Oddly enough... both units suffered from various problems following launch but it looks like things may have settled now.

FTR. I'm also quite happy with my K-5. And based on my own experiences, I'd say the AA filter is a much better alternative to moire than a smidgen of detail in most cases. But that's just me

[northcoastgreg]

while there I looked at the D7000 as a alternative to my K5...and just on feel alone..it didn't cut it...it felt cheap and quite nasty

I had a similar reaction when I fingered a D7000 at Costco. While "quite nasty" is a bit of an exaggeration, I was surprised at how plasticy and cheap this +$1,000 camera felt to the hands. My old *istDL feels firmer, stronger. And ergomomically, it's a below average camera, with no indent for the middle finder and no rubber on the grip, and nothing really comfortable to grab onto at all except its cheap plastic bloated casing. While in terms of sheer capability, there may not be much to choose between the k-5 and the D7000, in terms of build quality and ergonomics, the k-5 stomps all over the D7000.

[WerTicus]

in terms of sheer capability, there may not be much to choose between the k-5 and the D7000

there is tons of difference between these cameras, they are not even in the same league features wise... you do have to dig a little deeper than the spec sheet to find this out though...

d7000 has:

1fps less shooting speed
half the buffer size
lesser auto bracket options
crap button layout
no shake reduction
no weather sealing

plus more (less)

[philbaum]

there is tons of difference between these cameras, they are not even in the same league features wise... you do have to dig a little deeper than the spec sheet to find this out though...

d7000 has:

1fps less shooting speed
half the buffer size
lesser auto bracket options
crap button layout
no shake reduction
no weather sealing

plus more (less)

yep, some neat K5 features:
horizon correction - sounds phony, but i noticed a lot less processing on my part because of this,

real time roll and tilt display, i suppose to help with perspective distortion and pano setup

built-in interval shooting - which can also be used to set up a custom delay timer, forget 2sec, 12 sec, how about hours or more

multiple images - can help with smooth water when one doesn't have an ND filter,

hot pixels - you can map it out yourself

bracketing options (repeat) 2,3,5 vice just 3 on D7000.

built-in hdr - for those than want it on the fly

I suspect we will see a Nikon D400 that will try to out-feature and out-spec the K5, but it will be come at a higher price. Pentax didn't have to worry about carving out sales from another model niche, because pentax only has 3: 645D, K5 and Kr.

[Macario]

And yet Pentax's lack of lenses, in particular a 70-200/f2.8 and a 1.4x tc, is one reason I'm looking at going to Nikon! I believe it's quite an incomplete line up.

actually they do, they have the 50-135 2.8, which actually is a 70-200 on a APS-C camera.