[davidvcd]

How about tethering ? (and compatible with vista/win7).

[Aristophanes]

It may come as a surprise but every camera ever released has some relative weaknesses and strenghts. Never stopped any good photographer from making great photos.

Video on the Nikon D90 is awful, clumsy, and poorly implemented.

[Nass]

I might have bought this but initial information sounds like stunningly they've apparently not made it possible to disable DFS. Sounds like this uses the same ISO1600 bulb algo (which is related to the non-optional DFS) as the K-7. Nor have they made SDM "disablable", nor added tethered shooting.

Ok so realistically I accept that all this is probably due to limited development time and resources. But look ... they did add a new horizon feature that, yes.... checks the Z-index. I really wonder what's going through their heads when they spend their resources developing that rather than things that 1000s of committed people have asked for.

[pxpaulx]

Whats with the complaining that the K-7 body is reused this generation? the K-7 was the 1st generation of this body type. Multiple generations of cameras with similar bodies is a standard practice from all brands. But Oh No, Pentax didn't upgrade its' body at the same time as Canon and Nikon did, bankruptcy is in the future!

What about the Nikon D90, D80, D70 and D70s? The D40, D40x and D60? Canon 40D and 50D? Olympus E-p1, E-p2? Panasonic G1, GH1, GH2, G10, G2? Or Pentax's *ist DL, DL2, DS and DS2? K10D and K20D? K-m, K-x and K-r?

They can't make a K-7, then a quite decent (from what I have seen) upgrade in the same form factor with the K-5? Come on, there is no problem with discussing what we might want in a firmware upgrade already, or what you think is missing, but asking for another entirely new body from one generation to the next is just fickle.

[Aristophanes]

Nikon D3100 and new Sony offer rather good performance of AF in video.

And you've used the D3100? The AF with video sounds like a squealing pig. Power goes to nothing in minutes of use, and the focus is herky-jerky unless you use a small aperture, like f/8.

You are better off using the small aperture with MF and an external mic with a bunny.

This is the big selling point of the m4/3's IMNSHO. In order to get good DSLR AF video we will need silent AF motors (SDM DC ETC.) likely from dedicated video lenses.

I'd buy a dedicated video lens, BTW, especially in the 18-135 range (hint, hint). I actually find that my best lens for outdoor video is my 10-17 FE.

[Asahiflex]

My take on the few weaknesses of the K-5 is as follows. Maybe you can follow my line of thinking. Maybe not, but I had a little 'aha-erlebnis' today

I think Pentax deliberately left out things like tethered shooting, manual control in video, 24 FPS in 1080p and the uncrippled mount for one simple reason, and that is that Pentax has plans for a FF camera with all of these goodies on board.

Because a K-5 with just a FF sensor would not be enough for most buyers; there must be more reasons to make a FF Pentax attractive for as many buyers as possible. So they deliberately chose to cripple the K-5 in certain features, otherwise no-one would buy the FF model if it only has the FF sensor as a distinctive factor.

That is my $0.02; make of it what you will!

[gazonk]

I think Pentax deliberately left out things like tethered shooting, manual control in video, 24 FPS in 1080p and the uncrippled mount for one simple reason, and that is that Pentax has plans for a FF camera with all of these goodies on board.

Yes, let the FF rumours commence again!

[pxpaulx]

My take on the few weaknesses of the K-5 is as follows. Maybe you can follow my line of thinking. Maybe not, but I had a little 'aha-erlebnis' today

I think Pentax deliberately left out things like tethered shooting, manual control in video, 24 FPS in 1080p and the uncrippled mount for one simple reason, and that is that Pentax has plans for a FF camera with all of these goodies on board.

Because a K-5 with just a FF sensor would not be enough for most buyers; there must be more reasons to make a FF Pentax attractive for as many buyers as possible. So they deliberately chose to cripple the K-5 in certain features, otherwise no-one would buy the FF model if it only has the FF sensor as a distinctive factor.

That is my $0.02; make of it what you will!

Seriously? I believe Pentax could put a K-mount on a plastic box with a shutter button, two dials and M mode with a FF sensor and it would sell. OK, slight exaggeration, but if FF is in the future, withholding little tid bits would definitely NOT be necessary to increase sales!

[Blue]

The weaknesses of K-5 - what do you think?
What could be better?

1. no 12/14 bit RAW mode ?
2. small buffer size ?
3. weak video control ?
4. no AF in video ?
5. price? higher than 60D and D7000
6. still 1/180 x-sync
7. ridiculous speed modes - 7 fps and 1.6 fps. K-7 has 5.2 and 3.3 fps modes (and it's logical)

What is your impressions, thoughts, feelings???

Now you have got to make some more lists. List the strengths of the K-5. Then list the weaknesses of the D7000 and one of its strengths. Remember that the magnesium shell on the D7000 isn't in the front.

[GordonZA]

I just wanted to follow up on my previous moan about nothing by moaning again....

Ah that's better...

Now.... where did I put my vodka? (sorry ogl could not resist teasing you...)

[pxpaulx]

Now you have got to make some more lists. List the strengths of the K-5. Then list the weaknesses of the D7000 and one of its strengths. Remember that the magnesium shell on the D7000 isn't in the front.

Agreed. If you want to be a pragmatic, list-type comparison oriented person, then you have to list every camera, with every positive and every negative, for discussion! Otherwise you're not neutral as you claim to be OGL.

We do all get it. If its not a missing feature, its the price. One way or the other, the K200d is never going to be replaced.

Bash me if you want, but this is no game changer, as K10D and K-7 have been. Nice camera, it is, but not for me.

This need for high ISO performance just sounds silly. If your style shooting demands that you shoot at ISO of 3200 without a hint of noise, then I say spend more money on lighting equipment other than simple flash and brighter primes. The money it costs to buy this body can be better spent buying a lens or two.

I for one put the money where my mouth is; in the last two weeks I have spent exactly $1,600 for 1)DA* 300/4 from smc 2) Carl Zeiss Distagon 35/2 zk. To me this is the way to go.

[Asahiflex]

This need for high ISO performance just sounds silly. If your style shooting demands that you shoot at ISO of 3200 without a hint of noise, then I say spend more money on lighting equipment other than simple flash and brighter primes. The money it costs to buy this body can be better spent buying a lens or two.

Tell that to the birds I want to shoot in the evening with my Sigma 500/4.5.

[Blue]

Bash me if you want, but this is no game changer, as K10D and K-7 have been. Nice camera, it is, but not for me.

This need for high ISO performance just sounds silly. If your style shooting demands that you shoot at ISO of 3200 without a hint of noise, then I say spend more money on lighting equipment other than simple flash and brighter primes. The money it costs to buy this body can be better spent buying a lens or two.

I for one put the money where my mouth is; in the last two weeks I have spent exactly $1,600 for 1)DA* 300/4 from smc 2) Carl Zeiss Distagon 35/2 zk. To me this is the way to go.

A game changer? I'm guessing this K-5 is going to be better than my K20d in many respects. However, the only clear game changer Pentax has put on the market was the *istD. They have had some features that had major impacts such as in body SR and WR. Sometimes just staying in the game is important. When the game is over, you are screwed.

[kytra]

It may come as a surprise but every camera ever released has some relative weaknesses and strenghts. Never stopped any good photographer from making great photos.

Every camera brand has to make compromises to be able to offer a competitive product at a competitive price. They have to evaluate the cost of introducing features vs. the amount of customers for whom that may be a decisive selling point. For Pentax that's harder than for canikon because they sell in lower volumes and have a different brand perception. Pentax selling points are in body SR, ergonomics, weather sealing and backward lens compatibility. Nikon has been very smart with the D7000 by introducing backward lens compatibility, no doubt because they have evaluated how succesful that strategy has been for Pentax.

You just have to decide what is most important to your style of shooting. Pentax' major relative weakness is well known: AF for action shooting. If they significantly improved that with the new SAFOX version and manage to start getting rid of that image they will start carving their way into a whole new market segment just like Nikon is doing with backward lens compatibility.

I agree that the marketing department at Pentax/Hoya has been a bit sloppy in their information. Though that may not be smart business practice, personally I find that kind of charming, it shows that they are still more focussed on producing and designing good cameras than at focussing on perception. I also have the impression that part of the confusion was caused because they waited till the last moment in finalising their specs and the D7000 gave the people at Pentax a scare. Also under Hoya ownership there must have been some restructuring in the organisation which always creates the risk of communications breakdown and decreased effectiveness in parts of an organisation.

Anyway the final verdict will come when the real street prices start showing and stabilising and once the first thorough reviews start coming in.

I can understand that some people are disappointed because they were hoping for some features in the K-5 that didn't make it but if Pentax were in the business trying to make cameras that had all of those features they would have been bankrupt by now. As I said, any camera maker has to evaluate cost versus benefit of including more specialized functionality, the smaller your market segment the harder it gets and for a company like Pentax having some unique selling points that appeal to a large portion of potential buyers is all important so that's where their focus lies. If that means they have to sacrifice some functionality which may be important to a smaller but perhaps quite vocal part of the Pentax user community the profit equation still spells out their financial bottom line limits. Better lose a minor battle an live to fight another day than win some minor battles and discover you have invested too much to be able to continue the war.

I also get the impression that a lot of the bitching on these boards is from people who have unrealistically high expectations from a camera and at some level expect a camera that will magically improve their pictures. Part of them would be better off investing some more time improving their basic photographic skills because it would make a more significant contribution to the quality of their photography and to their creative satisfaction than hoping for some magic camera that will solve all their dissatisfactions. Personally I get more creative satisfaction and a better aesthetic experience from shooting with my 50 year old Rolleicord Vb with all its limitations than from shooting with my K20D and it has taught me a lot about photography in a very enjoyable way.

Photographers have made awesome photos that people still enjoy since the dawn of photography, from box cameras to holgas, from cheap folders to pinhole cameras. Cameras with all kinds of severe limitations. You can do things with cameras now that all those great names from the history of photography could not even dream of and more people than ever have access to all that technology and yet the bitching only seems to get worse. I think the reason for that is that having a camera with a gazillion features in no way guarantees you'll make better pictures or get more creative satisfaction from shooting. If you are still dissatisfied while having a camera with shi*loads of features and an amount of versatility that all those great photographers from history could only have dreamt of I think it is safe to say that the problem is not in the camera.

Just my two cents.

Sorry for the long quote

With all due respect, IMO you do not see the real reasons behind all this.

Whining and moaning had became a pentaxian sport because of Pentax non-customer centric attitude who frustrated a lot of people a lot of time. Do i need to list them? SDM, SDM, SDM, AF, p(athetic)-TTL, warranty periods, support network, announcements never or very late fulfilled and so on...

Why on Canon forums nobody says nothing about the D7000? Same for Sony or 4/3 users. They stick to their own and that's it.

It is so bad that the undeniable qualities of Pentax are shadowed by sometime trivial issues but very annoying if not addressed properly. A lot of people, including me, are trying to wake-up the customer centric attitude in Pentax management, to no avail as it seeems.

Some pople like you say "shut up and go practice photography" Yes is true but remember that Pentax is here not as a god but as a provider of goods/services who has to offer value for money and when people feel that they are paying too much for a certain product/service they start to say that and eventually switch.

One example: one of the most active Pentax bloggers, hinman (I hope he does not get angry because I am using his story) decided to switch - you can find his threads in the marketplace and his thoughts here and on photo.net. Letting this happen is a mistake in my book.

Regards,

K