[krypticide]

Quite happy with my K-5 as well. Funny thing is that I didn't realize my 43mm was so sharp until I put it on my K-5. My K-7 was back-focusing so badly that I couldn't completely compensate it in-camera.

[Rondec]

Quite happy with my K-5 as well. Funny thing is that I didn't realize my 43mm was so sharp until I put it on my K-5. My K-7 was back-focusing so badly that I couldn't completely compensate it in-camera.

Yes, I guess I am lucky -- on my K7, my DA *55 needed some focus adjustment, as did my DA 70, but on the K5, all of the lenses are spot on without adjustment.

I have to say that I was a little afraid when I purchased it, due to all of the reports about focus problems, stains, and flash issues, but I have not experienced any of these.

My wife shot a ceremony over the weekend that was candle lit and K5 had no difficulty snagging focus. I am sure that Nikon and Canon are ahead in the area of auto focus still, but the gap has definitely narrowed.

[Skymist]

Just thought I would include a few more photos:
My daughter with DA 70 (bounce flash).

Lovely shot. The combo of good shake reduction and high ISO performance allows you to do well in no-flash situations too. Let me follow that up with this dimly lit available-light photo which relied heavily on the shake reduction to keep it sharp:

K-5, Zeiss Planar T* 50mm F/1.4 lens, F/4, 1/20th sec, ISO 5000, handheld, manual focus, from raw, manual WB.

[dreamfoto]

nice shots rondec

Skymist your balance is out of balance. Or the Planar is screwed but dont panic yet, just check the white balance

[Skymist]

Skymist your balance is out of balance. Or the Planar is screwed but dont panic yet, just check the white balance

That photo is available-light only. Notice two sources - blue light from a TV set on the left, and tungsten light from overhead. I manually adjusted WB using as reference the white light switch cover in the background, which is far enough from the TV to be an accurate tungsten reference. Adjusting WB based on the blue source is possible but the result goes fairly far into the orange. See below, same shot but with WB adjusted for the TV illumination on the left.

[Christine Tham]

That photo is available-light only. Notice two sources - blue light from a TV set on the left, and tungsten light from overhead. I manually adjusted WB using as reference the white light switch cover in the background, which is far enough from the TV to be an accurate tungsten reference. Adjusting WB based on the blue source is possible but the result goes fairly far into the orange. See below, same shot but with WB adjusted for the TV illumination on the left.

I like the original better. As you pointed out, more true to the light source.

I sometimes feel photographers obsess too much about white balance correction. I like my photos to portray the scene they were shot at, not artificially corrected to make it seem as if they were taken in broad daylight.

The worst are the people who adjust white balance for shots taken in the morning or afternoon to make it seem like it's noon. The shadows clearly show that it's not noon, or the clouds show that it's clearly not sunny, so my brain just screams wrong wrong wrong.

[Rondec]

Just thought I would post a couple of photos (one is on page 1) comparing the same rose taken with the k5 and K7 (taken on different days, with different lenses).

K5 with DA 55-300



K7 with DA *50-135

[Skymist]

That photo is available-light only. Notice two sources - blue light from a TV set on the left, and tungsten light from overhead.

I went back and studied the shot. Here I have #1 the version with WB based on the blue light from the TV to the left, then #2 the version with tungsten WB referenced to the wall in back, then I tried #3, the exact average of the two settings. I think I like it best.

[dreamfoto]

That is nice Skymist.

Alternatively you can use Lightroooom

just as explained in this tutorial here

Lightroom tutorial Adjustment Brush

You Tube

You Tube

[Skymist]

That is nice Skymist.

Alternatively you can use Lightroooom

just as explained in this tutorial here

Lightroom tutorial Adjustment Brush

Thanks, I learned a bit there. Lightroom is so versatile!

[asp1880]

I went back and studied the shot. Here I have #1 the version with WB based on the blue light from the TV to the left, then #2 the version with tungsten WB referenced to the wall in back, then I tried #3, the exact average of the two settings. I think I like it best.

Me too.

Sometimes when a mixed-light problem drives me nuts, I try a black and white conversion. Black and white also works well on noisy high-iso shots. It makes the noise look good. Not that this particular shot is noisy, don't get me wrong.

Sincerely,
--Anders.

[germar]

Just a quick comment ---

As a K7 user waiting for a specific price on K5 bodies (its not too far off) I have to say that THIS thread has been the most useful, most real world, most encouraging thread I've read about the K5 in months.

Thanks to the original poster's detailed comments and photos, and thanks to everyone else for offering smart, courteous, troll-free comments (at least ... till this point, anyway).

Now ... all I have to do is hold on until the K5 price reaches my magic number!

[Designosophy]

I just received my K-5 yesterday and, though I haven't have much time to play with it, operationally, it's so much like my K-7 that I forget that I'm using a K-5. Of course, when I see the photos, I remember right away.

[Rondec]

After a few more days of experimenting with them both, I really feel like the K5 gives truer colors than the K7. I know that you should be able to get them the same in post processing, but you can't really. Here's a couple of photos of a clematis. The first one is the K5's, second one is from the K7.