[JohnBee]

Higher specifications than 7D? I'm not sure about that!

I'd agree given the limited data, however if the sensor rumors ring true, then there is good reason to conclude that it will supersede the 7D in terms of DR and ISO performance(see: Kx). As for the rest, well it will most likely fall into the usual hodgepodge of end-user values.

Either way, its going to be a pretty exciting next few weeks as the hard-line facts unfold.

[captmacq]

Pentax. They already have pro AF (they all have; every AF problem I've so far seen documented have turned out to be user error). Noise is no problem todays digital camera and rumor has it that the 16mp sensor is in the D700 territory noise wise (certainly much better image quality wise). Pretty bad, huh?

" yet to be determined AF and noise performance"

and if it maches a D700 performance ill buy it and fighure out how to push the buttons with my big hands

[XMACHINA]

25,600 ISO? WTH? I keep thinking of a camera club member who asked me how I got good color in my slides. I told him, "I used to try to shoot everything hand-held, but when I checked the specs of the pictures I admired, they had all been shot from a tripod using much slower film than I was using. So I bit the bullet, loaded slower/sharper film in my camera, and shot everything off of a tripod. I also started getting up earlier in the morning so I could be out in position when the good light hit." He snorted and said, "I don't get out of bed before 10am! And I HATE using tripods! But I still don't understand why your pictures better color than mine."

I'm not sure about what you're confused. We don't all shoot landscapes. Tripods and early-rising will have no positive impact on some people's photography; in fact, the would make some sorts of photography, like my preferred genres, virtuously impossible.

I don't mean to put too fine a point on this; my comment here is more a response to the frequently expressed confusion from those who are principally landscape and/or macro shooters about the complaints concerning the present state of Pentax autofocus and high ISO performance.

Don't need faster autofocus or better high ISO performance? Fair enough. But, as the saying goes, it's better to have it and not need it etc...

-XM

[Pål Jensen]

$1650 K-5 is $110 more than 7D, $150 more than D300s

And why shouldn't a Pentax cost more than a NIkon or a Canon? Is it some kind of natural law?
I read somewhere that the 7D cost 150,000 Yen - don't know if it is true. The K-5 139,000 (don't know if thats true either). Remember that any price is recommended price upon release. Most cameras are sold at a discount.

[kenyee]

He snorted and said, "I don't get out of bed before 10am! And I HATE using tripods! But I still don't understand why your pictures better color than mine."

LOLLOLOLOL. Great story.

If the K-5 has a clean ISO3200 (like the K20D's ISO800) and 1080p/24 recording, I'm upgrading, even w/ the smaller body than the K20D

p.s., anyone know what sensors these use? Sony/Nikon have switched to 14/16MP sensors. I'm surprised the K-R doesn't use the 14 but it sounds like the K-5 is using the Sony 16MP sensor? Frame rates don't match the Nikon/Sony rumors...

[JohnBee]

$1650 K-5 is $110 more than 7D, $150 more than D300s

Pentaxians dropping more coin than 7D or D300s cost in Fall 2010?

And Easily $200-$300 more than 7D and D300s will be at Christmas 2010.

Since were looking at preliminary pricing vs mature market value, I doubt this will matter much with respect to retail given the usual adjustements trends. My guess is that it will follow in the path of the K-7's price history.

Assuming the K-5 comes-in at/or around: 1500US and is slated to settles at/or around: 1400, I'd say this would position it nicely amidst the competition. Not to mention the impact it would have on the upper-end product lines.

[Pål Jensen]

Don't need faster autofocus or better high ISO performance? Fair enough. But, as the saying goes, it's better to have it and not need it etc...

-XM

But problem I have is that I have never encountered any subject in natural world that move faster than AF (of any modern camera). I mean, it can focus from infinity to the close focusing distance in less than a second. In lightlevel that is too low for the meter to work the AF take 1s to focus (do you guys use a handheld meter as well?).

Sure higher ISO performance is great. But lets be realistic; every DSLR can shoot at ISO values that was pure science fiction a few years ago with a quality that is publishable in fine art form.

[Pål Jensen]

LOLLOLOLOL. Great story.

If the K-5 has a clean ISO3200 (like the K20D's ISO800) and 1080p/24 recording, I'm upgrading, even w/ the smaller body than the K20D

Actually, the K-7 has clean ISO 1000 and more. This images is shot at 1000ISO, and as if that wasn't enough, it is cropped 50% as well. No noise reduction.

[mattdm]

Each to their own, captmacq, for me the K-7 is the best APS-C camera body design yet made.

Ditto. I went from the K10D (same basic body as the K20D) to the K-7, and it's a huge step up. So much more comfortable in my hands. Plus, don't underestimate the improvements from the K20D. The improved autowb alone is almost enough for me to justify the upgrade.

[lurchlarson]

I really hope that the 6400 ISO will be clean and 12,800 very usable. I'm starting to shoot bands and weddings where flash isn't allowed and a tripod not practical. Having the extra 3-4 stops of shooting latitude will be much appreciated.

If these specs are true then it might be enough to keep me from lusting after the low-light capabilities of the D700 (and upcoming d800).

Now they just need to release a greater variety of lenses.

I also hope that the body is bigger than the K7 (i.e. the size of the k20d). The K7 is small in my hands.

[Pål Jensen]

Now they just need to release a greater variety of lenses.

We need something wider than the 15 Limited. The 14/2.8 is too close to the 15 (and the 16-50/2.8) to make much sense. It is also too large for my taste. The 15mm is about 23mm for FF and it is not a superwide. Something around 12mm is needed.

[StigVidar]

We need something wider than the 15 Limited. The 14/2.8 is too close to the 15 (and the 16-50/2.8) to make much sense. It is also too large for my taste. The 15mm is about 23mm for FF and it is not a superwide. Something around 12mm is needed.

The only problem I know of regarding K-7 is that it's so good that I probably won't upgrade to a K-5.

Perhaps a 12mm is needed, but I would love a small and compact 55/2,8 about the size of DA40/2,8.

[agsy]

The new models sound exciting. My Kx is fantastic as it is with 4.7 FPS and the very good high ISO performance. If the new model's (K-r) shutter would be a lot quieter, the video mode would have auto focus and better control, the LCD would be a tilt-swivel and higher rez., HDMI port, TaV mode and better metering, I might consider upgrading.

Can't wait for the detailed specs!

[noser]

But problem I have is that I have never encountered any subject in natural world that move faster than AF (of any modern camera).

You've never seen a nervous bridesmaid, who has to pee, really hoof it down the isle after a ceremony then, have you?

I mean, it can focus from infinity to the close focusing distance in less than a second.

Maybe on the K-7. K20D and 50-135mm? Not so much. It makes an upgrade attractive.

In lightlevel that is too low for the meter to work the AF take 1s to focus (do you guys use a handheld meter as well?).

In lower light (light requiring ISO 1600 - 3200 to get a 1/125 @ f/2.8) with a moving target (the aforementioned bridesmaid...) even getting AF lock is a 50-50 game. Again, I'm looking forward to an upgrade... with a few caveats.

Sure higher ISO performance is great. But lets be realistic; every DSLR can shoot at ISO values that was pure science fiction a few years ago with a quality that is publishable in fine art form.

True. I remember when finding and properly processing ISO 1600 or 3200 was a big deal. Now it's all just ho-hum. But I like it just the same.

[aragondina]

TBH.

For what it's worth, I think the specs are justifiable. Though the real deal maker is whether or not the camera can live-up to the expectations. So in that sense, I think the K-5 has a really good chance at becoming the first Pentax body that will give the upper-end lineup a run for it's money(including... the D700).

I hope for Pentax's sake it does live up to the specs. The K7 was supposed to be the "Canon killer" looking at the specs, but in reality fell short of the competition in many key factors, like focus speed, high ISO, and dynamic range. It beat the competition in build quality but that is a small factor when choosing a camera system, If it doesn't meet expectations they could lose a lot of Pentaxians who have been waiting to replace their K10 or K20.

Specs mean nothing if Pentax can't make good on them. Having an ISO of 25,600 isn't any good if it isn't a usable number. If ISO1600 is as good as you can use without too much PP, then a setting of 25600 is moot. Just saying that while the k7 has iso6400, I know past ISO2000 it's not worth my time to even bother because the quality goes down so quickly. A crop frame camera will never be able to match a full frame like the d700, the 7d, is faster, but loses in low light (it's fairly clean, but the pics are mushy). There is always some give and take at any price point.


The "leaked" specs are nice to see and hopefully it will be a good product for some Pentaxians to move up to. I'm still waiting for the full frame announcement though..........