[MarkJerling]

Congratulations on your "new" K-5! Like you. I'd like a K-1, but currently budget does not allow me to get one!

[BirdDude007]

Congrats on the K-5, I started my digital experience(after a long absence from photography because I originally didn't trust digital,and I didn't think it could ever come close to my ME-Super) with a K-X and after a year with that awesome entry level camera I upgraded to a K-5 (new at that time)Since then over the last 5~6 years this thing has performed like a tank, thus giving me no reason to upgrade, it even has made me some good money. I will most likely add a camera body like a K-3 or something. I have learned the trick is all in the glass you buy.....
One day soon I will have my ME-Super TLC'd and will dabble in shooting film for fun, but I agree with you Pentax has really shined when it comes to digital.....

[pichur]

It has been over a month since picking up a K5 and I must say the digital experience is everything film is outside of the magical world of processing and printing. Really liking the ability to go from monochrome to color at the touch of a button. Seems I do it all the time. So far I have shot 150 pictures. 125 pictures more than I took all of last year with the trusty ol' MX film camera. Yes, dad, I do compose what I shoot, and I don't ever use the "motor drive" so I'm not just shooting, but I must say I am experimenting far, far more than I do with film.


Manual focusing is very good with this camera, and I have not so good eyes, but the viewfinder and prism make it clear enough, even indoors. Split screen appears not to be necessary. The K5 is simply a very, very good camera, and I am not sure how much benefit can be derived from a K1. Kind of disappointed that it is so good because I really wanted a full frame, but at the same time I am surprised that this digital experience is so satisfying!


What I am unable to figure out is why Pentax is kind of like the bastard stepchild in the camera world here in the US. This K5 is very robust, feels very good in my meathook hands, and the button layout is virtually perfectly done. As I have not used a Cannon or Nikon other than an old first gen Rebel, the menu and use of it seems to me first rate, and very easy to navigate. Even the instructions for using total manual control were clear enough to learn from without looking for a video to show how it is done.


Again, thank you Pentax!


Thank you for making the camera backwards compatible so my old M lenses work with it. Thank you for making it easy to physically use. Thank you for making the software easy to understand. Thank you for the top quality images it produces. Thank you for thinking the thing through to such a degree that it does not disappoint in any way!

[C_Jones]

I had two K-5 cameras. They were really a substantial advance in the digital camera sector and I was able to take some great pictures with them on a consistent basis.

[ivanvernon]

It has been over a month since picking up a K5 and I must say the digital experience is everything film is outside of the magical world of processing and printing. Really liking the ability to go from monochrome to color at the touch of a button. Seems I do it all the time. So far I have shot 150 pictures. 125 pictures more than I took all of last year with the trusty ol' MX film camera. Yes, dad, I do compose what I shoot, and I don't ever use the "motor drive" so I'm not just shooting, but I must say I am experimenting far, far more than I do with film.


Manual focusing is very good with this camera, and I have not so good eyes, but the viewfinder and prism make it clear enough, even indoors. Split screen appears not to be necessary. The K5 is simply a very, very good camera, and I am not sure how much benefit can be derived from a K1. Kind of disappointed that it is so good because I really wanted a full frame, but at the same time I am surprised that this digital experience is so satisfying!


What I am unable to figure out is why Pentax is kind of like the bastard stepchild in the camera world here in the US. This K5 is very robust, feels very good in my meathook hands, and the button layout is virtually perfectly done. As I have not used a Cannon or Nikon other than an old first gen Rebel, the menu and use of it seems to me first rate, and very easy to navigate. Even the instructions for using total manual control were clear enough to learn from without looking for a video to show how it is done.


Again, thank you Pentax!


Thank you for making the camera backwards compatible so my old M lenses work with it. Thank you for making it easy to physically use. Thank you for making the software easy to understand. Thank you for the top quality images it produces. Thank you for thinking the thing through to such a degree that it does not disappoint in any way!

Pentax has always been more of a quality brand, and has never really gotten into mass marketing. Part of this at least is because the brand owners have not been well enough financed to mount a real marketing program. Mass marketing requires: (1) slicing and dicing the product so there are lots of different models pointed at various market segments, (2) a much better guarantee/servicing capability, (3) lots of media advertising, (4) a dealer development program, and (5) a professional development program. They also should probably develop models pointed specifically at each different professional market: (1) sports, (2) wedding, (3) portrait, and (5) landscape. Camera features and lenses would need to be developed that would cater to each segment.

[pichur]

I don't know anything about marketing and the such, but why can't a K5 be used for everything? I recall taking school sports pics with my K1000 back in the 70's , and they were used in the yearbook and school paper. Honestly, I don't understand why there is a need for specialty cameras. My dad used an Argus(Made in Michigan) to earn a living for a while and had pics on magazine covers. He also did portrait work with it. No doubt, I am not anywhere near a pro and don't want to be, but what does the camera body have to do with it? How would a landscape camera differ from a portrait camera? Sports camera? Is it build quality? Bells and whistles?

[Des]

How would a landscape camera differ from a portrait camera? Sports camera? Is it build quality? Bells and whistles?

I guess for landscapes, medium format would be ideal. For portraits, maybe full-frame. For sports and wildlife, APS-C. But yes any of the APS-C cameras and the K-1 could serve each purpose quite well, at least for amateurs.

I'm sure there are many portrait and wedding photographers who use a good APS-C camera, but I suspect most use FF. There would be a lot of journalists who use APS-C cameras as all-rounders, but if you look at pro news and sports 'togs they all seem to use FF.

[pichur]

When looking at a picture, what does one look for to determine if the pic was taken full frame or APS-C?

[lithedreamer]

When looking at a picture, what does one look for to determine if the pic was taken full frame or APS-C?

Depth of field, for portraiture. Low-light performance is still a good indicator of sensor size. Most of the benefits of 35mm vs APS-C, are quality of life improvements for the photographer, things that aren't likely to show up in those 8-bit JPEGs that get compressed again once they get uploaded to a here or Facebook. I find I take more photos, and they turn out closer to the way I imagined in my mind.

[pichur]

I know that 35mm was a huge improvement over the 110 I used before it, so it is reasonable to assume that the improvements will be noticeable if printing images taken, however not as big a difference as 110 to 35mm.

[abhaskare]

Looking forward to full frame as the 50mm lens doesn't have the same wide angle as it does on the MX. I do miss that.

The DA 35 f2.4 lens will give you similar angle as a 50 mm on MX, and its also reasonably priced. Pictures - colors, contrast come out very nice using this lens!

[cobbu2]

I bought my K-5 in 2011 shortly after it was released and superseded the K-7, having come from a film-only (H2, Spotmatic, MX, ME-Super, etc.) background up to that point. I have experiences as you from using my K-5 having since added a K-3ii, still keeping the K-5 as a backup. The beautiful thing about these is every once in a while I can put a M42/K adapter on my old beat-up 28/3.5 Super-Takumar or any of my other M42/K mount lenses, slap it on and marvel at the fine rendering of these legacy lenses in a digital setting. Very few modern imaging systems still allow that kind of capability.

[abhaskare]

The beautiful thing about these is every once in a while I can put a M42/K adapter on my old beat-up 28/3.5 Super-Takumar or any of my other M42/K mount lenses, slap it on and marvel at the fine rendering of these legacy lenses in a digital setting. Very few modern imaging systems still allow that kind of capability.

I have tried a few legacy lenses and while they work, it probably depends upon the particular lens one has. The Super Takumar 50/1.4 was the best however needed yellow light correction. The A 50/2.0 was better than the M50/1.7. I also have the Zenith 55/2.0 and is nice.
I feel the legacy lenses still lack the contrast, color and liveliness the modern DA lenses offer, the DA 35/2.4 and DA 50/1.8 are amazing. The legacy lens compatibility is probabably holding back Pentax to venture in the mirrorless world.

[cobbu2]

I have tried a few legacy lenses and while they work, it probably depends upon the particular lens one has. The Super Takumar 50/1.4 was the best however needed yellow light correction. The A 50/2.0 was better than the M50/1.7. I also have the Zenith 55/2.0 and is nice.
I feel the legacy lenses still lack the contrast, color and liveliness the modern DA lenses offer, the DA 35/2.4 and DA 50/1.8 are amazing. The legacy lens compatibility is probabably holding back Pentax to venture in the mirrorless world.

Without a doubt, the modern lenses do perform excellently. However in some applications, I.e. portraits, I prefer the low-contrast rendering they offer, it's all a matter of taste. And I just think it's cool to be able to use a vintage lens on a modern system for the fun of it.

And for curiosity's sake, I know nothing of mirrorless cameras or Pentax's history with them, but for my knowledge, why would legacy K-mount capability thwart Pentax's mirrorless efforts? Other manufacturers introduced mirrorless systems with old and/or new mounts alongside their flagship mounts, I.e. Leica, without changing or moving on from them; what would make Pentax any different? Not saying I disagree, just curious. Thanks, Allan

[Des]

And for curiosity's sake, I know nothing of mirrorless cameras or Pentax's history with them, but for my knowledge, why would legacy K-mount capability thwart Pentax's mirrorless efforts? Other manufacturers introduced mirrorless systems with old and/or new mounts alongside their flagship mounts, I.e. Leica, without changing or moving on from them; what would make Pentax any different? Not saying I disagree, just curious. Thanks, Allan

See this discussion: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/6-pentax-dslr-discussion/325643-will-rico...ss-camera.html
As I understand it, the flange on the K-mount requires a certain minimum distance to the sensor. So a mirrorless K-mount camera will always be bulkier than other mirrorless cameras with purpose-designed mounts. Exhibit A: the APS-C mirrorless K-01, which is much bulkier than rival mirrorless cameras, and never really took off. That is why Ricoh's commitment to the K-mount for backward compatibility limits its options for a mirrorless camera.

Of course they could develop a new mount which could also accept K-mount lenses with an adapter (maybe with autofocus), but they would need to launch a whole new range of lenses to support it. Pentax did that with the Q (with limited success), but to do it with a full-frame or APS-C sensor would be a big commitment for a company with limited resources.

Fuji effectively turned its back on Fujinon legacy lenses; they must have put a fortune into developing a whole new range of lenses with the X-mount. X-mount lenses cost about double their K-mount counterparts, and few third-party manufacturers develop for the X-mount. That's the alternative route.

Personally, I'm content with Pentax's strategy. As for the legacy v modern lenses argument, I'm just pleased that we have options for all tastes and budgets.