I would venture to guess that they were focusing issues, possibly issues with the early firmware used to test the K-5 2 years ago, or issues of a lens which needed focus adjustment. If you look at the sample images from the dpreview review of the K-5, and compare them to, say, the K-x, the K-5 images appear less sharp and lacking in detail. This belies the results that we've seen on here and Flickr about the K-5.
There is a debate which claims that the 14-bit RAW and higher Dynamic Range in the K-5 makes it "appear" to have less contrast and detail (that such contrast must be added back selectively in post-process), and the opposing side says that the Dynamic Range is faked by decreasing contrast.
Either way, the samples from IR and DPreview don't seem representative of what I've seen come out of the K-5.
Originally posted by gorski The price drops would never happen if there would be no delays because of the flodings and Ricoh takeover.[...]. I think K-5 is exception that will not repeat.
That's what I keep thinking - and I keep thinking that the K-5 is the camera that is likely to wear better and satisfy me for longer, based on informal reports of the K-7 and K-5 having higher build quality and feel than the K-30.