[qtopplings]

To me, K-5 is not, by any stretch of imagination, a great camera. It is a fine camera, a tad better than K-7 in certain situations, but not by much. On the other hand, K-7 was a great leap from K20D. Yes K-5 is what K-7 should have been, but you cannot expect a company to hit a home run every time. Progression of K-5 from K-7 is nothing more than how K20D went from K10D. As far as concerned, istD, K10D, and K-7 are historically speaking more important than K-5.

K-5 is not a bad camera, but the fact remains that the reputation is stained amongst many (obviously not among fanboys, and that is perfectly alright). It is not a crime to criticize a camera. It is the criticism that propels products to be better on the next cycle. I can tell you that Pentax is not happy about this camera. There are people who lost jobs within that company because of the sensor issues.

Oh, this Creampuff person. This is the second time she insinuated that I cannot afford K-5. I am not sure what she gets out of saying that repeatedly. Is it a crime in your neighborhood to be poor? If it is, I apologize on behalf of all the people who cannot afford K-5. Not everybody who cannot afford K-5 dislike K-5. That is called stereo typing. BTW, she really needs to get this out of her head, because I have a 645D, which I think is a great camera in terms of IQ, but needs some work as a MF camera.

YAWN.....

And I call bullsh*t on that last statement.

[dcmsox2004]

fontan has me confused... he has the 645d, not the k-5..... can anyone denigrate the k-5 without owning one and actually using it?

fwiw... been posted before.... but dxo (i'm sure closeted pentax fanboys.. lol)
has, through it's exhaustive testing, posted this:

The best APS-C in all tested fields
No need for suspense: this new 16.3 MP sensor is simply the best APS-C we have tested so far, sometimes able to compete even with very high-end full-frame cameras.
The overall score of the K5 puts it in the lead with 82 points — more than 9 points better than the D90 or the Alpha 55, and 16 points ahead of the Canon 7D or 60D. The K5 is literally the best APS-C performer for each segment, even in low ISO.
Wonderful Dynamic Range performance
Dynamic range is clearly where the K5 struts its stuff. The scores it reaches at ISO 80 are simply impressive: at 14.1 Ev (print mode), even the D3X’s full-frame sensor is not that good. Smoothing appears at ISO 3200 but does not impact the metrics.

[Siegfried]

Oh, this Creampuff person. This is the second time she...

Oops!
As a newbie to this chat I wasn't aware of the sex of that person, sorry. So I have to comment my previous post above on the 1st page:

A dude, idling at a bus station, sees a girl walking by and then suddenly a wind blows her skirt up. Dude, which is quite natural, stares at the view opened and carefully looks over. Girl gets pink and goes:
- I see you're not a real gentleman!
Dude replies:
- I see you're not a gentleman either!


Zig

[firefly]

You probably made K-5 a better camera than it actually was.

While browsing the thread I read this and thought it to be a nice compliment to the photographer (DogLover). Maybe he meant it as a veiled criticism against the camera, but I didn't read it that way.

You're too negative about the K-5, not just here but in other threads on PF. Are you perhaps acting like a sour grape because you can't afford to buy one?

It's comments like these that turn me off of internet forums. Personal attacks based on income status, no place for that here. I don't mind saying I can't afford one either.

Who are you trying to defend anyway, the camera? I've got news for you, it doesn't care.

[DogLover]

To me, K-5 is not, by any stretch of imagination, a great camera. It is a fine camera, a tad better than K-7 in certain situations, but not by much. On the other hand, K-7 was a great leap from K20D. Yes K-5 is what K-7 should have been, but you cannot expect a company to hit a home run every time. Progression of K-5 from K-7 is nothing more than how K20D went from K10D. As far as I am concerned, istD, K10D, and K-7 are historically speaking more important cameras than K-5.

I seriously cannot imagine anyone who has actually used a K5 saying such a thing. It is so much of an improvement over the K7 that the matter is not even debatable. Before I got one, I too thought that it would be kind of a "K7 with faster AF and better high-ISO performance." I've even said as much in previous posts. Boy, was I wrong. K5 is not a "progression camera" as you say, it is a smack-in-the-head game changer, and yes, a truly great camera!

BTW, K7 was a leap over the K20 really only in design, not so much in performance. K20 was a progression from the K10, since you apparently have trouble grasping what progression means.

Yes, you could say that the K5 is what the K7 should have been, but guess what, the sensor in the K5 didn't exist when the K7 came out. Hell, the K5 is what the K10 should have been! Makes about as much sense. Your "logic" and assessment of Pentax makes my head hurt.

[dadipentak]

K7 was a leap over the K20 really only in design, not so much in performance.

I think that's exactly right. The combination of design and performance makes the K-5 such a quantuum leap that we can convince ourselves (and others) that we're better photographers than we really are ;~)

Sure there's room for improvement and they will come, I suspect but I don't think there'll be another revolutionary release for a while.

[Fontan]

YAWN.....

And I call bullsh*t on that last statement.

Now which part of the last statement are you calling on? Just curious.

[Fontan]

fontan has me confused... he has the 645d, not the k-5..... can anyone denigrate the k-5 without owning one and actually using it?

fwiw... been posted before.... but dxo (i'm sure closeted pentax fanboys.. lol)
has, through it's exhaustive testing, posted this:

The best APS-C in all tested fields
No need for suspense: this new 16.3 MP sensor is simply the best APS-C we have tested so far, sometimes able to compete even with very high-end full-frame cameras.
The overall score of the K5 puts it in the lead with 82 points — more than 9 points better than the D90 or the Alpha 55, and 16 points ahead of the Canon 7D or 60D. The K5 is literally the best APS-C performer for each segment, even in low ISO.
Wonderful Dynamic Range performance
Dynamic range is clearly where the K5 struts its stuff. The scores it reaches at ISO 80 are simply impressive: at 14.1 Ev (print mode), even the D3X’s full-frame sensor is not that good. Smoothing appears at ISO 3200 but does not impact the metrics.

I realize this is not about semantics, but I did not denigrate K-5. I actually said it is a fine camera.

As an equipment compared to another by way of DxO methods, I won't deny (how can I?) that K-5 scores very high. That is fine and all, but that will not make you a better photographer. Sure, you photos shot in the dark with high ISO will look "shaper" and"less noisy," but you are still the same photographer. There are photographers out there who would outshoot amateurs with K-5, with P & S. I will say that gap has narrowed considerably and tremendously since the beginning of digital era. No question about it. But this happened mainly due to the fact that digital photography gave so much more feedbacks to the photographer faster and cheaper. The learning curve got steeper.

In a studio setting with controlled lighting, I am certain that something like K20D would probably be more than professionally adequate for US letter size prints and publication. I think that "modern" digital cameras are already that good.

[Fontan]

I seriously cannot imagine anyone who has actually used a K5 saying such a thing. It is so much of an improvement over the K7 that the matter is not even debatable. Before I got one, I too thought that it would be kind of a "K7 with faster AF and better high-ISO performance." I've even said as much in previous posts. Boy, was I wrong. K5 is not a "progression camera" as you say, it is a smack-in-the-head game changer, and yes, a truly great camera!

BTW, K7 was a leap over the K20 really only in design, not so much in performance. K20 was a progression from the K10, since you apparently have trouble grasping what progression means.

Yes, you could say that the K5 is what the K7 should have been, but guess what, the sensor in the K5 didn't exist when the K7 came out. Hell, the K5 is what the K10 should have been! Makes about as much sense. Your "logic" and assessment of Pentax makes my head hurt.

This is clearly not about grasping what progress means. You have to go way beyond that. If you are stuck there, much like the person who is worried about if I could afford K-5, you are not even at a point of being right or wrong.

While I believe that improved sensor in this day and age will not make photographer much better, I do believe that improved design and ergonomics will go a mile and half in making one a better photographer. To me this is more of a factor than a sensor can ever be, because many and much of the sensors on the market these days are more or less all superior than yesteryears. A better designed camera will allow a photographer to be more in control of the equipment. K-7's design I thought was very intuitive for a camera of that size and where you can go with it.

Pentax took a chance when selecting Samsung sensor for K-7. They in a way looked at sensors as like lenses. They thought that sensors that simulated the attractive characteristics of films would be a hit amongst Pentaxian. They went retro with appearance to be in line with that concept. They were clearly excited about the camera. They spent considerably more resources on advertising pre-release. But they were wrong. People wanted sensors that are more in line with the rest of the market. It clearly did not exceed the pre release expectations sales wise. So for majority of the market, K-5 was pretty much what K-7 should have been. I am sure that there were sensors at the time of K-7 release that behaved better in DxO labs. It was a tactical error from the market standpoint.

I for one love the characteristics of K-7 sensor. I think that K-7 is a very under-rated camera. A fantastic design, as you say, and much agreed. Therefore, to me, K-7 is fine the way it is. The only limitation for me was that when printing large, results were not what I was looking for. That is really about it.

[Fontan]

While browsing the thread I read this and thought it to be a nice compliment to the photographer (DogLover). Maybe he meant it as a veiled criticism against the camera, but I didn't read it that way.



It's comments like these that turn me off of internet forums. Personal attacks based on income status, no place for that here. I don't mind saying I can't afford one either.

Who are you trying to defend anyway, the camera? I've got news for you, it doesn't care.

Well, my thought was that if pictures you take with K-5 are better, then give yourself a bit more credit first. That is not all, but most of it anyway.

[jbinpg]

Now my turn to call bu&&sh*t. Fontan - bottom line: you don't have the K-5 so stop putting it down.

[Fontan]

Now my turn to call bu&&sh*t. Fontan - bottom line: you don't have the K-5 so stop putting it down.

If you want to further advance your argument, you need to present a better bottom line. You may take as many turns as it takes. Ownership may not necessarily be a requirement for a fair assessment. You cannot prevent formation of thoughts and opinions based things like lack of ownership. It is politically incorrect. It may well be inappropriate even in Iran.

[timh]

Fontan, what's your opinion based on?

I can get shots with the K5 that I couldn't have got with previous models simply because of the huge dynamic range. So while I may not be a better photographer, I can take better photos.

DogLover - maybe it's a combination of better SR plus faster shutter speeds (due to higher ISOs being relatively clean)?

[creampuff]

...Ownership may not necessarily be a requirement for a fair assessment. You cannot prevent formation of thoughts and opinions based things like lack of ownership. It is politically incorrect. It may well be inappropriate even in Iran.

Any internet hack can freely put forward an opinion on an open forum. Nothing to do with being politically correct or not. One can cite from many sources and appear to know "the facts" but if you haven't even owned or used the K-5, you can be sure whatever opinion you advocate carries little or no weight at least in the area of usability as there is no experiential backing to support your unsubstantiated and unsupported opinion on the K-5.

I for one agree completely with DogLover and that of other users' observations on the improvements the K-5 brings vis-a-vis other earlier models because they have a basis to make that comparison, that basis being ownership. Until you can actually experience the camera first hand, questions remain on the veracity of your statements on the K-5.

I've owned the K10D, K20D, K-7 and now the K-5 and I don't believe I am alone in saying the K-5 is a big if not quantum leap over the K-7 in imaging performance. But you probably wouldn't know firsthand how much the difference is until got a K-5, would you? But I'm looking forward to you posting images from that 645D that you mentioned earlier.

[Christine Tham]

I have a 645D

OMG .. are you Chow Yun Fat???

Please say you are (drool)