[fs999]

The most important is the lens, the camera will follow... which ever brand you choose.
Pentax lenses are excellent. That's my point of view.

[alexeyga]

Jeeezzz I don't even know where to start. First of all I asked an honest question, I don't work for Nikon! I just had a genuine curiosity about Pentax, I have read awesome things about the K-5.
I thought forums are for this purpose to discuss and see what other people think! I didn't know this site is for the only purpose of the adoration of the Pentax brand.
If Adam thinks this is a conspiracy against Pentax I will more than fine he deletes my thread.
That's all, thanks to all for your great input and have a great day!
Peace on earth!!

No worries, lately the forum has been resembling a bad joke about church where you can't pronounce the "f-word". Any openly-shared idea that goes against Pentax is considered a sin and makes mods trigger-happy.

[Frogfish]

We need to balance a few posts in this thread. I'll state straight up that I've never used the D300s but I have shot paid events with a pro's 7D also mentioned above. Better than the K5d ? Not in my book, though both have their pros and cons.

Now firstly I'm glad that Boriscleto posted that link above - that is a very extensive test that blows the AF question out of the water. Is the K5 slower, just a tad, is it more accurate ? I certainly is. So unless super fast AF is an imperative for you then it comes down to preference, accuracy over speed.

Next the D300s vs K5 comparison.
D300s : 938 g, 12.2 MP, 3,200 base ISO max, 12.2 EV, shutter lag 225 ms, 147x114x74 mm, 6,400 ISO (boost ISO), 22.5 bits, 787 ISO (DR), 51 (more focus points), 15 (cross-type focus points).
K5 : 740 g, 16.1 MP, 12,800 base ISO max (2 f-stops better), 14.1 EV, shutter lag 104 ms (x2 faster), 130x96x72 mm, 51,200 ISO (boost ISO is 3 f-stops better), 23.7 bits (Better color depth), 1,162 ISO (substantially better dynamic range), 11 (focus points), 9 (cross-type focus points).

To say nothing of Pentax's in-camera SR Image stabilisation which is worth another 2-3 stops over a non-stabilised Nikon lens (or pay the bigger bucks for stabilised lenses).

As for the lenses question. Who cares if it's 3rd party or the manufacturers own lens so long as it delivers the IQ and suits your needs ? Don't think you can find enough lenses in the Pentax + 3rd Party line-up to meet the OP's needs ? Really ?! I didn't see him asking for long 500/4, 600/4, 800/5.6 birding lenses. So Pentax's and 3rd Party's 90 new lenses (to said nothing of discontinued or legacy lenses) are not enough even though they don't match Nikon's + 3rd Party's 132 ? Far far too much is made of this. Maybe, long lens wildlife/birding shooters aside, only one in 20 shooters can not find what they want from those 90 lenses above with 19/20 being very satisfied.

If the OP decides on a K5 now then for his budget and needs I'd marry it to : Tamron 17-50/2.8 ($500) + 50-135/2.8 ($800) (if you can still find a Sigma 50-150/2.8 I'd get that instead - ca. $600 used) and a 55-300 ($350 - but only if you need the length), buying one or more of those used will keep you within budget. If you want primes then consider the 15 Ltd ($480) which is an amazing lens if you like the FL and is tiny, the 21 Ltd is tiny ($325), the 40 Ltd pancake ($360 is both tiny & great) the 43 ($800 or about $500 used) is small and one of the best lenses ever made (that's a quote from a Leica shooter), the 70 Ltd ($550) is again tiny and a superb lens, the Pentax 100 WR ($600) is an excellent lens but for the money the Tamron 90 di can't be beat ($500), and yet, despite that BS above about not being able to find Pentax lenses on the used market, I've never found any problem finding whatever I need (and I've seen all of those mentioned listed used for sale on Pentax forums over the past few weeks).

[eddie1960]

We need to balance a few posts in this thread. I'll state straight up that I've never used the D300s but I have shot paid events with a pro's 7D also mentioned above. Better than the K5d ? Not in my book, though both have their pros and cons.

Now firstly I'm glad that Boriscleto posted that link above - that is a very extensive test that blows the AF question out of the water. Is the K5 slower, just a tad, is it more accurate ? I certainly is. So unless super fast AF is an imperative for you then it comes down to preference, accuracy over speed.

Next the D300s vs K5 comparison.
D300s : 938 g, 12.2 MP, 3,200 base ISO max, 12.2 EV, shutter lag 225 ms, 147x114x74 mm, 6,400 ISO (boost ISO), 22.5 bits, 787 ISO (DR), 51 (more focus points), 15 (cross-type focus points).
K5 : 740 g, 16.1 MP, 12,800 base ISO max (2 f-stops better), 14.1 EV, shutter lag 104 ms (x2 faster), 130x96x72 mm, 51,200 ISO (boost ISO is 3 f-stops better), 23.7 bits (Better color depth), 1,162 ISO (substantially better dynamic range), 11 (focus points), 9 (cross-type focus points).

To say nothing of Pentax's in-camera SR Image stabilisation which is worth another 2-3 stops over a non-stabilised Nikon lens (or pay the bigger bucks for stabilised lenses).

As for the lenses question. Who cares if it's 3rd party or the manufacturers own lens so long as it delivers the IQ and suits your needs ? Don't think you can find enough lenses in the Pentax + 3rd Party line-up to meet the OP's needs ? Really ?! I didn't see him asking for long 500/4, 600/4, 800/5.6 birding lenses. So Pentax's and 3rd Party's 90 new lenses (to said nothing of discontinued or legacy lenses) are not enough even though they don't match Nikon's + 3rd Party's 132 ? Far far too much is made of this. Maybe, long lens wildlife/birding shooters aside, only one in 20 shooters can not find what they want from those 90 lenses above with 19/20 being very satisfied.

If the OP decides on a K5 now then for his budget and needs I'd marry it to : Tamron 17-50/2.8 ($500) + 50-135/2.8 ($800) (if you can still find a Sigma 50-150/2.8 I'd get that instead - ca. $600 used) and a 55-300 ($350 - but only if you need the length), buying one or more of those used will keep you within budget. If you want primes then consider the 15 Ltd ($480) which is an amazing lens if you like the FL and is tiny, the 21 Ltd is tiny ($325), the 40 Ltd pancake ($360 is both tiny & great) the 43 ($800 or about $500 used) is small and one of the best lenses ever made (that's a quote from a Leica shooter), the 70 Ltd ($550) is again tiny and a superb lens, the Pentax 100 WR ($600) is an excellent lens but for the money the Tamron 90 di can't be beat ($500), and yet, despite that BS above about not being able to find Pentax lenses on the used market, I've never found any problem finding whatever I need (and I've seen all of those mentioned listed used for sale on Pentax forums over the past few weeks).

That I think is what the OP was originally looking for. I don't think Norm was going at the OP BTW but all the negative responses.
In many ways the K5 has an edge on the Nikon but not all. If you are looking for good iw, excellent build and compact and lightweight to carry I really don't think it can be beat. and as you've pointed out there are some excellent lenses available certainly enough to meet most peoples needs. If you need the big long glass the selection is very limited right now, If you need a specialty lens like a tilt shift well you are better off looking at canikon certainly. If you need FF same thing. If you are a big flash photography guy or shoot sports then maybe canikon is it as well. All these things are likely to change over the next couple of years as Ricoh's plans for the brand get implemented though.
Meanwhile the K5 is pretty tough to beat for the average enthusiast. and With prices sub $1000 easily found now a $2500 budget will get you off to a very good start. like Frogfish said the 17070 and 50-135 are easily available for the extra $1500, if you really want lightweight and are a prime guy you can put together a DA ltd trio (21/40/70) and the K5 for less than $2500 as well

As the op said he tried the K5 at BH photo and liked it and I think he was just looking for some advice on it
For me I can say the body design of the K5 K7 has probably the nicest form factor i've used. and the used selection may not be as broad as nikon's but then again you are competing with a lot less people to get that used lens as well

[Frogfish]

Jeeezzz I don't even know where to start. First of all I asked an honest question, I don't work for Nikon! I just had a genuine curiosity about Pentax, I have read awesome things about the K-5.
I thought forums are for this purpose to discuss and see what other people think! I didn't know this site is for the only purpose of the adoration of the Pentax brand.
If Adam thinks this is a conspiracy against Pentax I will more than fine he deletes my thread.
That's all, thanks to all for your great input and have a great day!
Peace on earth!!

Norm wasn't having a go at you mate. It was a rant at some of the pro-Nikon, anti-K5 brigade.

[Winder]

Great advise guys, maybe I will wait to see what Nikon and Pentax are going to release!
Thank you all!!

Definitely wait at this point. You already have a D300s which is a very good camera so there is no hurry. For what you are wanting to do with your camera either will be more than adequate.

What is it about the D300s that you don't like? What has you looking around? You said the K-5 looked like a better option. In what way does it appeal to you?

[emalvick]

For the OP, the only negative I can see to what he is considering is having to get all the new glass to go with a K5.

I have a k5 (K10d previously), and I honestly can't see myself switching brands because I put a lot of money into the glass, and really that ends up being the most important feature of a camera system. Slower AF, Faster AF, etc won't matter if the glass isn't great to begin with. To go with that, when I initially invested in the Pentax brand, I honestly didn't see a lot out there to convince me that any brand was miles ahead of the other (Canon, Nikon, and Pentax). I'm an amateur, so Pentax was the economical choice. It's advantages were the the backwards compatibility with all its old lenses, the weather sealing, and the body based shake reduction that made all lenses essentially shake reduced. I actually came from the old Minolta system in terms of my old film body, so I had no initial base to start from.

That being said, if I was to do it all over or to start as the OP has, I probably wouldn't change brands IF I already had a lot of Nikon glass to start with. Of course, one could sell their setup, and that's fine, but I think there is enough to like about each brand anyway. The OP has not stated much about what he is unhappy with besides size. If that is the only reason to change than Nikon probably will be moving down a smaller road as Pentax seems to be doing.

In the end, the OP probably can't go wrong. I do love my K5, and while it has its flaws, so does everything. I don't think any company has truly created the perfect camera, especially at the APS-C level. The lack of availability on the used end probably comes from many of the other system users buying up Pentax glass given the proliferation of adapters. I consider that more unfortunate than bad. It wasn't quite so difficult to come across older glass when I first got my K10d. Thankfully, I feel fairly satisfied with my current kit. As long as my K5 works, I doubt I'll bother even buying a new body. The k5 provided everything I wanted.

[eddie1960]

OP did say he doesn't have expensive lenses. so to me that implies he's not really invested in the brand. all the types of photography he mentions the K5 will do easily as well as his Nikon (and in many cases better due to the improved sensor), he later stated he wanted something more compact and lighter to carry (Really does no one read before they type)

A $2500 budget will either get him 2 moderate nikon lenses or a Pentax system (Nikon 2.8 zooms will set him back more than $2500 actually), so looking at a more compact system with high iq and good lenses versus the current body with maybe 2 new fast lenses, but still the same EV and DR performance, no edge on the K5 unless Flash is important or faster but less accurate AF more suited to sports shooting
One thin I will agree on their is no need to rush as the body will only get cheaper, and the lenses don't really change much in price (the 17-55 2.8 Nikon retails for 1380 up here and they don't have a 50-135 equivalent. As Pentax is vested in APSC with no need to protect the best performance in lenses to the higher end it's actually less expensive to shoot as an apsc system with good glass (no need to buy the FX glass to get good iq like in Nikon land)

Both are good cameras but based on the limited info I think the K5 is the better choice (if OP says yes he does in fact use flash a lot and it's integral to his shooting style then I'd suggest staying with Nikon and moving down tho the more compact D7000 (not quite as nice but similar performance to the K5 with a better flash system

I'm with norm some of the replies here smack of stealth marketing and trollism. (not you emalvick)

[normhead]

Sorry Mr. Leon, it's not your fault, it's just every time we have a post like this, stuff like this happens. People come on, generally trash Pentax's, tell us they can't use them... without ever thinking "maybe it's me". There are a lot of us out there who find Pentaxes fine for what we do...you might be one of them, I don't know... But you already know your Nikon system, I assume what you wanted to know was why you might like a K-5. It would seem very few are able to go with that. Many seem to spend their time focusing on their photographic incompetence. Others just want to tell you why you shouldn't like Pentax.

DxO labs give the D300s sensor a score of 70 and a K5 has a sensor score of 82, right up with a NikonD3s and a bit behind a a D3x (88). There are reasons why some of us can't make use of that sensor... most of us can.

If you spend a lot of time shooting moving subjects in low light you may not want a K-5. If you need the fastest possible focusing speed, or if you need really big file sizes you may not want a K-5. In almost every other situation, you will either excel or make do with a K-5. Lots of people do. A few that for some reason can't and think that is somehow Pentax's fault..well there can be two problems. It can be them, or it can be Pentax... and most of the time, you'll never know which it was. So hearing over and over about what they can't do, get's tiring. Especailly when most of it makes so little difference to the rest of us.

.

[kenyee]

Sorry Mr. Leon, it's not your fault, it's just every time we have a post like this, stuff like this happens. People come on, generally trash Pentax's, tell us they can't use them... without ever thinking "maybe it's me".

That actually reminds me of a thread on Nikon Cafe. A guy bought a D700...couldn't figure out why stuff was out of focus or exposure wasn't right when he was using P mode (aka, "P is Professional Mode"...LOL :-). He had upgraded from a D300 because he was told the D700 was better at low light shooting.

Everything has pros/cons. Understand what they are and see if you can live with them. If you can't, find something you're happy with. Some people switched from the Pentax because they wanted FF. Some switched from a heavy/big FF setup to the K-5. Some switched to the D7000 but they had one that has BF/FF issues and then hated it. It all depends on a lot of things.
Some folks have tried multiple systems and prefer one over their other. It's all good...as long as you're happy w/ what you have. I don't understand why people have to just obsess over what systems they no longer have (similar things happens w/ PCB Alien Bee strobes and usually Elinchrom users...just constant flame wars about what's "better")...

[ThonasDay]

From what I understand the biggest advantage of the k-5 over the D300 (preferential ergonomics aside) is the sensor. The D7000 and D5100 both have the same sensor as the k-5, so wouldn't the logical upgrade path be the D5100 or the D7000 as they both share the same sensor as the k-5 but uses the same lenses as the OP already has.

I love my k-5, but I don't think it is for everyone

[eddie1960]

From what I understand the biggest advantage of the k-5 over the D300 (preferential ergonomics aside) is the sensor. The D7000 and D5100 both have the same sensor as the k-5, so wouldn't the logical upgrade path be the D5100 or the D7000 as they both share the same sensor as the k-5 but uses the same lenses as the OP already has.

I love my k-5, but I don't think it is for everyone

The D7000 may well be that path but he did mention he doen't have great lenses either so where will he get the better value on lens/body combination if he wants the better glass and has the $2500 to spend. Nikon is heavily vested in very good but big heavy and expensive FX glass with a very limited selection in DX Glass. Pentax has a very good more affordable selection of Glass on the market if you are looking for iq/price combination IMO (if you went used you could get a 16-502.8 and a 50-1352.8 along with the K5 for pretty close to that $2500.... there is no equivalent Nikon in that price range. You could also get the DA LTD pancake trio and a K5 for that price once again there is no Nikon equivalent to that

So it boils down to how does the OP want to shoot (he did state getting smaller and lighter was a goal . the ltd trio with a K5 would be tough to beat in that respect

[alexeyga]

The D7000 may well be that path but he did mention he doen't have great lenses either so where will he get the better value on lens/body combination if he wants the better glass and has the $2500 to spend. Nikon is heavily vested in very good but big heavy and expensive FX glass with a very limited selection in DX Glass. Pentax has a very good more affordable selection of Glass on the market if you are looking for iq/price combination IMO (if you went used you could get a 16-502.8 and a 50-1352.8 along with the K5 for pretty close to that $2500.... there is no equivalent Nikon in that price range. You could also get the DA LTD pancake trio and a K5 for that price once again there is no Nikon equivalent to that

So it boils down to how does the OP want to shoot (he did state getting smaller and lighter was a goal . the ltd trio with a K5 would be tough to beat in that respect

You might want to be more precise as to what does "equivalent" means. It's not a big industrial secret that both DA*16-50 and 50-135 are available for other mounts under Tokina badge (without the WR and SDM) and if on the used market the 50-135 Tokina is easily available for 450-550$, then the 16-50 is a rare beast simply because it was a failure IQ-wise. But since it's a third-party lens anyways, Tamron's and Sigma's 16-50 and 17-50 are findable for 350-500$.

So as such, you gonna have hard time justifying Pentax's prices on 16-50 and 50-135 (which, b.t.w. as a bonus do come with SDM-lottery), vs the equivalents in CaNikon mounts. My favorite example of "Pentax has a very good more affordable selection of Glass on the market if you are looking for iq/price combination" is the Pentax 12-24mm f/4 which currently goes for how much in classifieds? 700-800ish? That exact same lens from Tokina runs for 300-350$ in CaNikon. How cool is that?

In reality, Pentax has got it-self out of the "affordable" category a good while ago. If somebody was to start a photographic system from scratch Today, buying a Penxax body+lenses would be hardly a financial choice over other manufacturers.

Where Pentax really does shine are the LTD primes, these really have no equivalents and for many, these lenses are the reason for sticking with Pentax.

[westmill]

A bit like the woman blaming the postman for blurring her pictures because he allowed them drop on the floor !
I dont think its a case here of mmmmm maybe its me lol
I also have a D3s as it happens... and yes.... norm is right here.... When the K5 gets it right the K5 i think gives a slightly better image poss, its certainly close.
Its a two edged sword though. It really is a case of when it gets it right, and there is the rub.
Im just being honnest about things. The D300 is a damm good camera ! Its reliable and it produces the results and gives more than enough quality for what
most people need. The only reason me and others are banging on about the D300 is simply the fact the OP already has one !
I figure since I have both cameras my opinion is valid. As a working tool, the K5 does not come close to the D300 period.
Im hardly biassed, since I bought the K5 with the intention of switching systems. I like some of the lenses etc.
Obviously for me... reliability is more important than big files. Hand on heart though, I wish I had bought another D300.
He might love the K5 ! in some respects yes its a great camera. I personly think though if he gets rid of the D300 for a K5 he will kick himself for doing so.
If it wasnt for the fact the OP already has a D300 I would not be saying all this for sure !
the fact is, where I live, I could buy a K5 with a 50-135 for just £100 more than a D300 body !
Thats a massive diferance ! Sometimes its nice just to have a change anyway.
There are thousands of happy K5 customers ! I personly doubt very much that there are many that will say they would swop there D300 for one if they had one for
a wk though. I certainly wouldnt. And yup ! I bought the K5 after rave reveiws in depreveiw !
So I thought i had done my homework. I only paid £500 for the K5 brand new, as such its bargain of the century and I would highly recomend it !
I just wouldnt recomend anyone swapping a D300 for it. Just a thought.... I also have a Fuji S5pro with only 6 million pixels..... If i was forced to throw one in the bin,
the K5 would go before the Fuji ! Ive sold my Olympus E1, 5 million pixel, and that would have been a hard decision.

[Verglace]

The D7000 may well be that path but he did mention he doen't have great lenses either so where will he get the better value on lens/body combination if he wants the better glass and has the $2500 to spend. Nikon is heavily vested in very good but big heavy and expensive FX glass with a very limited selection in DX Glass. Pentax has a very good more affordable selection of Glass on the market if you are looking for iq/price combination IMO (if you went used you could get a 16-502.8 and a 50-1352.8 along with the K5 for pretty close to that $2500.... there is no equivalent Nikon in that price range.

Posts like these are just pure disinformation and what lead me to my post here:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/173728-fa-77-1...ml#post1806660

The fact is Nikon does have an equivalent for those lenses, and often times they are cheaper. Consider The DA*16-50, The Sigma and Tamron 17-50 are considered better in terms of IQ and are definately cheaper (see DA* 16-50mm vs. Sigma and Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 Comparison - Introduction - PentaxForums.com they are both available for Nikon).
The 50-135 is matched or bettered by the Sigma 70-150 f2.8 (sigma can be found cheaper)
The FA77 matched by Sigma 85 1.4 (also sigma can be found cheaper)

Most Pentax lenses are also available from Tokina at cheaper prices too.

The only thing that they have no match for is the DA15mm Limited and the Novelty factors of the slow DA 21/40/70 ltd pancakes

And that's just Sigmas and Tamrons. They can be found cheaper for better IQ. The only reason to go for Pentax these days is the WR. Pentax bodies are cheap yes, lenses are not.

As for sizes
Primes tend to be small (besides thsoe f/1.2 primes and telephotos) and zooms tend to be large, the D7000 and k-5 are similar in sizes.