[joelovotti]

I'm sure you all remember the days when you could pay good money for a 35mm SLR (mine was the ME Super) and then spend the next 5 to 10 years collecting lenses without feeling like you were falling way behind technically.

Up to now with DSLRs, that 5-10 year comfort zone was more like 12 to 18 months.

My question is, does the K5 change all that?
Let's forget about video for the sake of this discussion and talk just photography.

Assuming ISO 408,000 is not going to happen in the near future, what could be offered in a "K3" that would force me to upgrade?

I'm not saying that the K5 is the end of the line, I'm just saying that we may be truly getting to the point where I could keep a DLSR for 5 years without walking around with a dinosaur

Long story short, instead of getting bogged down in feature debates, vote on how close we are to a true 5 Year camera?

Be well, joe.

[Rainer Dynszis]

what could be offered in a "K3" that would force me to upgrade?

Nothing and nobody forces you to do anything. Apart from that, there's always room for improvement, i.e. better specs which may prove to be attractive for prospective buyers.

Pars pro toto, I would pay good money for a K-3 that flawlessly delivers what the K-5 should do, and additionally comes with a FF sensor that has the qualities and same pixel pitch as the K-5 (meaning some 40 megapixels with good dynamic range).

[robgo2]

I see the K-5 as a 2 to 3 generation camera, because IQ is so good that further improvements are likely to come in relatively small increments. Improvements in AF will certainly interest some users, but not most. Still, one never knows what technology will bring our way that might prove irresistible. Clean ISO 52,000 and a DR of 16 stops, for instance, will tempt almost anyone.

Rob

[FullertonImages]

I get what you mean. It sometimes seems like in a race to outdo each other the camera brands have rendered themselves useless. Camera technology could have frozen 2 years ago, and very few people could make a legitimate case for needed anything more than what was out there. I think very few people on this board could make a legitimate for needing more than the K-5, with the posible exception being manual video controls. Sure, there's a long list of things we all want, but I think most of us, including myself (and I shoot full time), would have a hard time making a case for a legitimate need beyond the capabilities of the K-5.

[JeffJS]

I'm sure you all remember the days when you could pay good money for a 35mm SLR (mine was the ME Super) and then spend the next 5 to 10 years collecting lenses without feeling like you were falling way behind technically.

Up to now with DSLRs, that 5-10 year comfort zone was more like 12 to 18 months.

My question is, does the K5 change all that?
Let's forget about video for the sake of this discussion and talk just photography.

Assuming ISO 408,000 is not going to happen in the near future, what could be offered in a "K3" that would force me to upgrade?

I'm not saying that the K5 is the end of the line, I'm just saying that we may be truly getting to the point where I could keep a DLSR for 5 years without walking around with a dinosaur

Long story short, instead of getting bogged down in feature debates, vote on how close we are to a true 5 Year camera?

Be well, joe.

I would submit that within 3 years of purchasing your ME Super, you were walking around with a Dinosaur when the Super Program was introduced. The question becomes, how much did you care then? I know it isn't what you asked about but I still couldn't care less about a full frame dSLR (and I never expect to see one from Pentax, even the 645d isn't full frame and that's a $10k camera).

I'm happy with the K5 as is for my own use and if presented with the option right now, the only thing that would make me abandon it, would be an articulated rear screen. That doesn't mean I won't buy the next latest body but the that feature is the only thing I'd Really like to have on the K5 over what it does now.

I would further submit that we make our own Need to upgrade. I've upgraded every model since the K10d and truth be told, while the others were nice new toys, the K5 is the first one I've actually made any real use out of the features I upgraded to get.

[Winder]

I have had my 5D for almost 5 years now. I have looked at other cameras and while there are some great ones I have yet to see one that justifies the cost for my needs. If the K-5 AF issues are fixed by a simple firmware then it might be the first new camera that I use professionally since the 5D. I would still like to see Pentax roll out some new fast glass to match a camera the quality of the K-5.

[timh]

I have a feeling it'll be fine for 5 years. Not 10, but probably 5.
Moore's Law vs. the Law of Diminishing Returns.

Of course that's never going to be true for the kind of people who owned a K10, a K20, a K-7, a K-x and now a K-5 until they find something more important to spend their money on!

(I'm still using a K200D and I'm happy with it. The K-5 is my next upgrade - I've played with it a few times and I'm sold, just checking out the international warranty situation.)

[dadipentak]

I've upgraded every model since the K10d and truth be told, while the others were nice new toys, the K5 is the first one I've actually made any real use out of the features I upgraded to get.

I feel pretty much the same--the K-5 is the first that really seemed like a quantum leap.

I can see being content with the K-5 for a couple of years but, given the pace of technology, I don't think I'll be able to hold out much longer than that (if that long ;~)

[hal_a]

I'm sure you all remember the days when you could pay good money for a 35mm SLR (mine was the ME Super) and then spend the next 5 to 10 years collecting lenses without feeling like you were falling way behind technically.

I still do that. and I'm shooting with a *ist D right now. That's a dinosaur if there ever was one.

I wish the MP race/ ISO race/ DR race would stop. Then the companies could go back to making/refreshing their lens designs.

Hal.

[sholtzma]

It's a good question. But take a look at the "Dear Pentax" thread, and consider what would happen if some of the better ideas on it were instituted in a new camera.

Would you consider updating if a new camera autofocused much faster, much more accurately, and much more consistently under various light sources? If it noiselessly went up to over 100,000 ISO? If it had GPS built in? If it electronically identified the depth of field visually for you"? If it had manual video controls? If it had dual card slots? If it controlled flash much better? If it could control for front focus/back focus not just for a lens but for different ranges of a given lens? If it had built-in wi-fi? If it had voice recognition, so that you could talk to it and give it commands? .... The list is endless, no?

Surely at some point the new camera is so far advanced in comparison with the old that it merits consideration for upgrading.

[ozlizard]

If the next Pentax (K3?) camera was a "K5" with a FF sensor and the body size of a K20 I would sell my children to get it! However until that moment comes the K5, I have to admit, is a worthy upgrade. Based on that scenario I would see me using it for at least 2 years. However there would have to be something VERY compelling to upgrade to a FF. I think the fact that it FF is simply not enough anymore.
I do get the feeling that digital cameras are poised to take a giant leap forward, the same way TV's, computers, internet, mobile phones etc all have. Compare the TV you are watching today with the one you were watching 5 years ago. Digital photography is still relatively new and I think a quantam leap will occur within the nest 5 years.

[Winder]

We will have to see what the new 135mm Sony sensors have to offer. The step forward that we see with the 16MP APS-C is pretty amazing. The 135mm sensor will be an equal improvement if not even more impressive. As long as Sony is not trying to lead the MP race I think the new sensor will be pretty amazing.

There are other improvements that will be significant.

[Tommot1965]

If the next body had very clean very High ISO files..Id upgrade....if it were just better AF..I wouldn't..

I still think there's plenty of room for cleaner High ISO files..so Id say most would upgrade just for that.


one observation I have on DSLR's over SLR's is the assumption that he new media {digital } is cheaper over the older media { flim} as there are now no processing costs.

Id have to disagree....what we have now is the need to dump a body if a newer better one comes out...in film, we just bought a new roll with better ISO capabilities .

also now we have thousands of redundant images that don't get deleted { in my case}..whereas we just did a roll of 36 and called that it for the afternoon..LOL

but I digress


my first body was a canon Eos 750..went to a Eos 650..then back tracked to a Minolta X700 Manual...which I still have and love...I just dont shoot with it anymore

[hal_a]

Id have to disagree....what we have now is the need to dump a body if a newer better one comes out...in film, we just bought a new roll with better ISO capabilities . also now we have thousands of redundant images that don't get deleted { in my case}..whereas we just did a roll of 36 and called that it for the afternoon

I agree. Whereas in the film world, you change the expensive body every 6-8 years (unless you're a pro who wears out a body each year), in the digital world, to take advantage of the better sensors, you change cameras every two years.

[kevinschoenmakers]

I hope so. I justified buying the K-5 because I think it'll last me for years. I can't really think of anything that's going to have me spending money on a new body in the coming years. Almost everything on the K-5 is by far 'more than good enough' for me.