Is K30 "better" then the K5?

kwk1 · 06-20-2012, 12:41 AM

Originally posted by Anvh

The production of the K5 has stopped so if all k5 are sold out then it won't be available any more

Thanks Anvh, didn't know they stopped already.

kwk1 · 06-20-2012, 12:43 AM

Originally posted by Ryan Trevisol

I agree with you, but I think it's pretty safe to say that the K-30's PDAF will be at least as good as the K-5's.

Anvh, I'm seriously torn between the two at this point. Our discussion really got me thinking.

What do you think, coming from a K-x, shoot 90% still/10% video, 50% sunlight/25% indoor no flash/25% indoor bounce flash? Which is the bigger step up? I won't be able to wait or afford the K-3 or whatever it's called.

Hey Ryan, if the AF is only as good, then I'd rather get a K-5.

Anvh · 06-20-2012, 03:17 AM

Originally posted by kwk1

Hey Ryan, if the AF is only as good, then I'd rather get a K-5.

AF isnt everything...

kwk1 · 06-20-2012, 03:33 AM

Originally posted by Anvh

AF isnt everything...

You're right. That's why I'd get a K-5 if the autofocus is similar.

Anvh · 06-20-2012, 05:50 AM

What if the AF is better on the K30?
You see what you're suggesting.

The K5 has a backfocus problem with low light and i really hope they solved that now so i actually hope the K30 AF is a lot better since that would mean the K3 would also have a much better AF.

But AF is not a deal breaker for most, most of what i do still involves manual focus since i like to use shallow DOF but thats me.

kwk1 · 06-20-2012, 06:43 AM

The lowlight back focus is putting me off on the K-5.
Is the K-3 the rumoured K-5 replacement?
That would be worth waiting for if the focus issues are solved.
To me, the K-5 is on the smallish side. The K-30 I think would be too small for me.

**jeffshaddix** · 06-20-2012, 06:45 AM

Originally posted by madbrain

You are wrong. You missed page 85.

You are wrong, page 85 has nothing to do with auto ISO speed. Auto ISO and auto ISO speed are not the same thing. Auto ISO speed determines what the minimum shutter speed should be before ISO gets boosted. This has nothing to do with setting the range of ISOs available to auto ISO.

Since you didn't mention TAv, I'll just give you a fishy stick.

Ryan Trevisol · 06-20-2012, 06:45 AM

Originally posted by kwk1

Hey Ryan, if the AF is only as good, then I'd rather get a K-5.

Originally posted by Anvh

AF isnt everything...

As far as features I care about, if the K-30 Autofocus is the same, not better, it comes down to:
ISO 80, Metal body, mic jack, top lcd, theoretical higher IQ, X-Sync jack
vs.
Focus peaking, video fps choices, lighter weight, smaller RAW filesize

Focus peaking would be REALLY nice when using my M50 1.7, but I've been getting by without that OR illuminated focus points. At least with illuminated focus points I would get a rough idea of where I'm focused. So if the AF is equivalent, it's definitely K-5.

But if the AF is significantly improved, I have to go K-30. All those nice K-5 features don't outweigh AF that I can consistently count on. For Anvh, he's mostly using MF so it may not be as big a deal for him, but AF on my K-x has been a nuisance in anything but bright light.

madbrain · 06-20-2012, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by jeffshaddix

You are wrong, page 85 has nothing to do with auto ISO speed. Auto ISO and auto ISO speed are not the same thing. Auto ISO speed determines what the minimum shutter speed should be before ISO gets boosted. This has nothing to do with setting the range of ISOs available to auto ISO.

Since you didn't mention TAv, I'll just give you a fishy stick.

OK, I see. I am pretty sure my K200D didn't have this feature. Auto-ISO range was pretty limited at 100 to 400 also.
I only had the K-r for a few months, not sure if it supported it.

Is this perhaps a feature that's only in the flagship bodies at the time (K10D, K20D, K-7, K-5) ?

I don't think it's really that big of a deal personally since I have never known about the existence of this feature

I am really not sure how often I would want to give hints to the automatic ISO selection. When do you actually use this ? In which modes ?

**jeffshaddix** · 06-20-2012, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by madbrain

OK, I see. I am pretty sure my K200D didn't have this feature. Auto-ISO range was pretty limited at 100 to 400 also.
I only had the K-r for a few months, not sure if it supported it.

Is this perhaps a feature that's only in the flagship bodies at the time (K10D, K20D, K-7, K-5) ?

I don't think it's really that big of a deal personally since I have never known about the existence of this feature

I am really not sure how often I would want to give hints to the automatic ISO selection. When do you actually use this ? In which modes ?

Av mode mostly. For example, if auto-iso is set to normal and I'm shooting my 58mm Nokton, the minimum shutter speed that the camera will allow without boosting ISO is 1/125. If I set auto-ISO to slow, this drops to 1/60, and at fast, this rises to 1/200. So if say I have SR on and am shooting a static subject, I'd want to use the slow mode since 1/60 would be sufficient to mitigate hand shake. If SR is off or your shooting live subjects, I'd keep the speed at normal, and if I'm trying to shoot fast moving subjects, I'd switch the speed to fast.

What I'd really like is to be able to just set that minimum speed directly with the front e-dial instead of hassling with the menus and the limited 3 options currently available.

Hope that helps!

Santoku · 06-21-2012, 03:22 PM - **1 Like**

I too am in the position of having to decide between K-5 or K-30 as an upgrade to my current K-x. I was interested in the dimensional and weight differences, so I examined the user manuals online and tabled the percentage differences, as I find that a useful metric in thinking about these things. Weight based upon presence of batteries and SD card (kind of useless without them). The K-x gives weights for lithium and alkaline batteries, so I just averaged the two.

Width Height Depth Weight
98.1% 99.5% 98.0% 87.8% K-30 relative to the K-5
93.5% 94.3% 92.5% 80.8% K-x relative to the K-5
95.3% 94.8% 94.4% 92.0% K-x relative to the K-30

Dimensionally, the K-30 is as close to the K-5 as anything, however there is a substantial difference in mass. A bigger difference in weight than between the K-x and the K-30. Does the magnesium alloy shell account for the weight difference of the K-5 alone, or are there other factors in the mass ?

daveej · 06-25-2012, 06:08 AM

Good to see others in the same boat as I, deciding on the K-5 or K-30 as a replacement. I really like the top LCD, and the longer battery life of the K-5. Will the K-30 take crv3 batteries in it's adapter, or just AA batteries?

Ryan Trevisol · 06-25-2012, 07:31 AM

Yep, I think there's a bunch of us in this boat. I've gone back and forth on it a dozen times already. Someone else summarized how I feel: It will be a very long time (likely 2 or more years) before the K-5's replacement reaches the price the K-5 is currently at, if it ever does. The way I see it, my K-x is worth less and less every day, and the chance to get the k-5 new, with the option for a 3-year warranty at this price is an opportunity I don't want to miss.

If you look at the adapter itself, it looks like a CRV-3 wouldn't fit.

gorski · 06-25-2012, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by Ryan Trevisol

Yep, I think there's a bunch of us in this boat. I've gone back and forth on it a dozen times already. Someone else summarized how I feel: It will be a very long time (likely 2 or more years) before the K-5's replacement reaches the price the K-5 is currently at, if it ever does. The way I see it, my K-x is worth less and less every day, and the chance to get the k-5 new, with the option for a 3-year warranty at this price is an opportunity I don't want to miss.

If you look at the adapter itself, it looks like a CRV-3 wouldn't fit.

I am also in this boat.

I do not think that K-5 replacements will have the same history (well future) as K-5. The price drops would never happen if there would be no delays because of the flodings and Ricoh takeover. For a short time K-5 became the only dslr which would satisfy consumers wanting the mid-level and higher-level dslr. I think K-5 is exception that will not repeat.

Santoku · 06-25-2012, 09:27 AM

I was over at Imaging Resource comparing the K-30 test shots with the same ones from the K-5 two-years ago (firmware 1.00).

Imaging Resource "Comparometer"

I will disclose up front that I have an untrained, amateur eye however almost all the shots with the K-30 seemed sharper to me. At very high ISO, while the noise in low contrast areas seemed "smoother" on the K-5, the detail was always sharper to my eye with the K-30. I was wondering if there was different application of in-camera noise reduction and/or sharpening, however there was no detailed EXIF information for the K-5. Downloading the full-size photos and trying to check the available EXIF data for each did not reveal any significant differences, but that data may not have been present to find. The colours coming out of the K-30 shots also seemed a bit more vibrant or saturated.

Anyone speculate on whether these are real differences from the Prime-M image processing engine (vs Prime-II) ? or are they likely differences in settings between the cameras ?

06-25-2012, 07:31 AM	#103
Ryan Trevisol Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: South Florida Photos: Gallery Posts: 312	Yep, I think there's a bunch of us in this boat. I've gone back and forth on it a dozen times already. Someone else summarized how I feel: It will be a very long time (likely 2 or more years) before the K-5's replacement reaches the price the K-5 is currently at, if it ever does. The way I see it, my K-x is worth less and less every day, and the chance to get the k-5 new, with the option for a 3-year warranty at this price is an opportunity I don't want to miss. If you look at the adapter itself, it looks like a CRV-3 wouldn't fit. Last edited by Ryan Trevisol; 06-25-2012 at 07:41 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Post your "Park Bench" "or "Picnic Table" images	tessfully	Mini-Challenges, Games, and Photo Stories	2201	2 Days Ago 03:25 PM
Do custom "artistic" or even "funny" lens caps evenexist?	lovemehate	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	33	02-10-2016 09:10 AM
Don't say Pentax "Q" in French ... "Q" = "cul" = "A--"	Jean Poitiers	Pentax Q	52	11-10-2013 06:25 AM
"Christians for a Moral America" plan boycott of "The Hobbit"	MRRiley	General Talk	47	01-23-2012 01:48 AM
K-x "aperture priority" records as "automatic" in meta data	charlestm	Pentax DSLR Discussion	3	12-05-2011 12:12 PM

06-20-2012, 12:41 AM	#91
kwk1 New Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: MB, CANADA Posts: 12	Originally posted by Anvh The production of the K5 has stopped so if all k5 are sold out then it won't be available any more Thanks Anvh, didn't know they stopped already.

06-20-2012, 12:43 AM	#92
kwk1 New Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: MB, CANADA Posts: 12	Originally posted by Ryan Trevisol I agree with you, but I think it's pretty safe to say that the K-30's PDAF will be at least as good as the K-5's. Anvh, I'm seriously torn between the two at this point. Our discussion really got me thinking. What do you think, coming from a K-x, shoot 90% still/10% video, 50% sunlight/25% indoor no flash/25% indoor bounce flash? Which is the bigger step up? I won't be able to wait or afford the K-3 or whatever it's called. Hey Ryan, if the AF is only as good, then I'd rather get a K-5.

06-20-2012, 03:17 AM	#93
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	Originally posted by kwk1 Hey Ryan, if the AF is only as good, then I'd rather get a K-5. AF isnt everything...

06-20-2012, 03:33 AM	#94
kwk1 New Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: MB, CANADA Posts: 12	Originally posted by Anvh AF isnt everything... You're right. That's why I'd get a K-5 if the autofocus is similar.

06-20-2012, 05:50 AM	#95
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	What if the AF is better on the K30? You see what you're suggesting. The K5 has a backfocus problem with low light and i really hope they solved that now so i actually hope the K30 AF is a lot better since that would mean the K3 would also have a much better AF. But AF is not a deal breaker for most, most of what i do still involves manual focus since i like to use shallow DOF but thats me.

06-20-2012, 06:43 AM	#96
kwk1 New Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: MB, CANADA Posts: 12	The lowlight back focus is putting me off on the K-5. Is the K-3 the rumoured K-5 replacement? That would be worth waiting for if the focus issues are solved. To me, the K-5 is on the smallish side. The K-30 I think would be too small for me.

06-20-2012, 06:45 AM	#97
jeffshaddix Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Colorado Posts: 1,473	Originally posted by madbrain You are wrong. You missed page 85. You are wrong, page 85 has nothing to do with auto ISO speed. Auto ISO and auto ISO speed are not the same thing. Auto ISO speed determines what the minimum shutter speed should be before ISO gets boosted. This has nothing to do with setting the range of ISOs available to auto ISO. Since you didn't mention TAv, I'll just give you a fishy stick.

06-20-2012, 06:45 AM	#98
Ryan Trevisol Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: South Florida Photos: Gallery Posts: 312	Originally posted by kwk1 Hey Ryan, if the AF is only as good, then I'd rather get a K-5. Originally posted by Anvh AF isnt everything... As far as features I care about, if the K-30 Autofocus is the same, not better, it comes down to: ISO 80, Metal body, mic jack, top lcd, theoretical higher IQ, X-Sync jack vs. Focus peaking, video fps choices, lighter weight, smaller RAW filesize Focus peaking would be REALLY nice when using my M50 1.7, but I've been getting by without that OR illuminated focus points. At least with illuminated focus points I would get a rough idea of where I'm focused. So if the AF is equivalent, it's definitely K-5. But if the AF is significantly improved, I have to go K-30. All those nice K-5 features don't outweigh AF that I can consistently count on. For Anvh, he's mostly using MF so it may not be as big a deal for him, but AF on my K-x has been a nuisance in anything but bright light.

06-20-2012, 04:16 PM	#99
madbrain Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 1,341	Originally posted by jeffshaddix You are wrong, page 85 has nothing to do with auto ISO speed. Auto ISO and auto ISO speed are not the same thing. Auto ISO speed determines what the minimum shutter speed should be before ISO gets boosted. This has nothing to do with setting the range of ISOs available to auto ISO. Since you didn't mention TAv, I'll just give you a fishy stick. OK, I see. I am pretty sure my K200D didn't have this feature. Auto-ISO range was pretty limited at 100 to 400 also. I only had the K-r for a few months, not sure if it supported it. Is this perhaps a feature that's only in the flagship bodies at the time (K10D, K20D, K-7, K-5) ? I don't think it's really that big of a deal personally since I have never known about the existence of this feature I am really not sure how often I would want to give hints to the automatic ISO selection. When do you actually use this ? In which modes ?

06-20-2012, 05:42 PM	#100
jeffshaddix Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Colorado Posts: 1,473	Originally posted by madbrain OK, I see. I am pretty sure my K200D didn't have this feature. Auto-ISO range was pretty limited at 100 to 400 also. I only had the K-r for a few months, not sure if it supported it. Is this perhaps a feature that's only in the flagship bodies at the time (K10D, K20D, K-7, K-5) ? I don't think it's really that big of a deal personally since I have never known about the existence of this feature I am really not sure how often I would want to give hints to the automatic ISO selection. When do you actually use this ? In which modes ? Av mode mostly. For example, if auto-iso is set to normal and I'm shooting my 58mm Nokton, the minimum shutter speed that the camera will allow without boosting ISO is 1/125. If I set auto-ISO to slow, this drops to 1/60, and at fast, this rises to 1/200. So if say I have SR on and am shooting a static subject, I'd want to use the slow mode since 1/60 would be sufficient to mitigate hand shake. If SR is off or your shooting live subjects, I'd keep the speed at normal, and if I'm trying to shoot fast moving subjects, I'd switch the speed to fast. What I'd really like is to be able to just set that minimum speed directly with the front e-dial instead of hassling with the menus and the limited 3 options currently available. Hope that helps!

06-21-2012, 03:22 PM - 1 Like	#101
Santoku Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Saskatoon, SK Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 131	I too am in the position of having to decide between K-5 or K-30 as an upgrade to my current K-x. I was interested in the dimensional and weight differences, so I examined the user manuals online and tabled the percentage differences, as I find that a useful metric in thinking about these things. Weight based upon presence of batteries and SD card (kind of useless without them). The K-x gives weights for lithium and alkaline batteries, so I just averaged the two. Width Height Depth Weight 98.1% 99.5% 98.0% 87.8% K-30 relative to the K-5 93.5% 94.3% 92.5% 80.8% K-x relative to the K-5 95.3% 94.8% 94.4% 92.0% K-x relative to the K-30 Dimensionally, the K-30 is as close to the K-5 as anything, however there is a substantial difference in mass. A bigger difference in weight than between the K-x and the K-30. Does the magnesium alloy shell account for the weight difference of the K-5 alone, or are there other factors in the mass ?

06-25-2012, 06:08 AM	#102
daveej Forum Member Join Date: May 2012 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 110	Good to see others in the same boat as I, deciding on the K-5 or K-30 as a replacement. I really like the top LCD, and the longer battery life of the K-5. Will the K-30 take crv3 batteries in it's adapter, or just AA batteries?

06-25-2012, 09:17 AM	#104
gorski Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 34	Originally posted by Ryan Trevisol Yep, I think there's a bunch of us in this boat. I've gone back and forth on it a dozen times already. Someone else summarized how I feel: It will be a very long time (likely 2 or more years) before the K-5's replacement reaches the price the K-5 is currently at, if it ever does. The way I see it, my K-x is worth less and less every day, and the chance to get the k-5 new, with the option for a 3-year warranty at this price is an opportunity I don't want to miss. If you look at the adapter itself, it looks like a CRV-3 wouldn't fit. I am also in this boat. I do not think that K-5 replacements will have the same history (well future) as K-5. The price drops would never happen if there would be no delays because of the flodings and Ricoh takeover. For a short time K-5 became the only dslr which would satisfy consumers wanting the mid-level and higher-level dslr. I think K-5 is exception that will not repeat.

06-25-2012, 09:27 AM	#105
Santoku Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Saskatoon, SK Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 131	I was over at Imaging Resource comparing the K-30 test shots with the same ones from the K-5 two-years ago (firmware 1.00). Imaging Resource "Comparometer" I will disclose up front that I have an untrained, amateur eye however almost all the shots with the K-30 seemed sharper to me. At very high ISO, while the noise in low contrast areas seemed "smoother" on the K-5, the detail was always sharper to my eye with the K-30. I was wondering if there was different application of in-camera noise reduction and/or sharpening, however there was no detailed EXIF information for the K-5. Downloading the full-size photos and trying to check the available EXIF data for each did not reveal any significant differences, but that data may not have been present to find. The colours coming out of the K-30 shots also seemed a bit more vibrant or saturated. Anyone speculate on whether these are real differences from the Prime-M image processing engine (vs Prime-II) ? or are they likely differences in settings between the cameras ?