Imaging Resource Full K-5 review

bhairavp · 04-12-2011, 04:53 AM

Pentax K-5 Digital Camera Exposure - Full Review - The Imaging Resource!

Not sure if this has been posted yet. They really liked the camera.

cateto · 04-13-2011, 01:01 AM

Thanks for the heads-up.

On the opposite side, a reputed photographer, Carl Weese (who did a stunnin job in reviewing the Pentax K10D for The Online Photographer back in the day), has recently posted his impressions about the K-5, and he's not so enthusiastic.

His short comment is here:
Working Pictures: Technical Notes: Testing the Pentax K5: no pix this post

**Michaelina2** · 04-13-2011, 01:39 AM

Originally posted by cateto

Thanks for the heads-up.

On the opposite side, a reputed photographer, Carl Weese (who did a stunnin job in reviewing the Pentax K10D for The Online Photographer back in the day), has recently posted his impressions about the K-5, and he's not so enthusiastic.

To be fair, in a follow-up comment he said...

"So, just to be clear, my decision to pass should in no way be taken as a "don't buy" recommendation. On the contrary, if you are working with a K10/20 (I've never used a K7) and can afford to upgrade, you'll love the K5."

Since he makes his living selling his photographs, it seems his main issue was justifying the cost of a K-5 to him when he is pleased with the results he's getting from his current set-up. A reasonable business consideration IMHO.

See...

Working Pictures: More Signs of Spring, and another technical note

Cheers...

**Rondec** · 04-13-2011, 03:34 AM

It sounds to me like the two issues he expressed were not so good auto focus and not so good lenses (he was using the DA 40, 15, and 35). Surprises me about the lenses, but according to him, the Panasonic lenses are just so much better.

asp1880 · 04-13-2011, 04:12 AM

He cares most about short prime lenses. It's harder to make a great short lens for a DSLR than for a mirrorless camera, because a short lens design can benefit from a short register distance (it must be true, I read it somewhere on the internet ...). So maybe the Panasonic m4/3 short primes just are really good?

Sincerely,
--Anders.

stanleyk · 04-13-2011, 04:47 AM

Originally posted by asp1880

He cares most about short prime lenses. It's harder to make a great short lens for a DSLR than for a mirrorless camera, because a short lens design can benefit from a short register distance (it must be true, I read it somewhere on the internet ...). So maybe the Panasonic m4/3 short primes just are really good?

Sincerely,
--Anders.

I have the Panasonic 20, 14, 45, and 7-14. As a person who also uses the 31, 43, and 77 I will assure you that the Panasonic lenses are very good. I find most of the people on this forum who dismiss M4/3 don't actually have or use a M4/3 camera.

**Rondec** · 04-13-2011, 04:55 AM

Originally posted by stanleyk

I have the Panasonic 20, 14, 45, and 7-14. As a person who also uses the 31, 43, and 77 I will assure you that the Panasonic lenses are very good. I find most of the people on this forum who dismiss M4/3 don't actually have or use a M4/3 camera.

Or, maybe they like fast, long lenses and really narrow depth of field. Seems like wide to normal is the best range for m4/3.

glanglois · 04-13-2011, 06:12 AM

Wide creates better ergonomics by better balance.

Long lenses look as if they'd be very awkward on a small M4/3 body, particularly if one is using the LCD for composition.

Of course an EVF can be added but by the time I'd get done, I'd have spent a pile of money and still have to carry a decent-sized bag around to hold the piece parts.

OTOH, one M4/3 body and one pancake lens is a nice package if your photography fits in that small envelope. Mine does not ....

johnmflores · 04-13-2011, 07:32 AM

Originally posted by stanleyk

I have the Panasonic 20, 14, 45, and 7-14. As a person who also uses the 31, 43, and 77 I will assure you that the Panasonic lenses are very good. I find most of the people on this forum who dismiss M4/3 don't actually have or use a M4/3 camera.

I concur. I have the Panny 20 and the Pentax DA Limiteds (21, 35, 40, 70). The Panny 20 is very good. Some of it no doubt due to in-camera processing (distortion correction, etc...), but that doesn't bother me in the least. It's the output that counts...

**Fontan** · 04-13-2011, 10:25 AM

The way k-5 is worshipped by some around here, I am utterly stunned that he is not being crucified on this forum.

**dcmsox2004** · 04-13-2011, 11:56 AM

fwiw.. a two week 'tour' of any dslr is only, imho, a cursory, thumbnail review at best..... the most thorough/respected reviews are by those who have been using the k-5 for months.... it'd be nice to have a complementary camera like the gf1 or ep1 or 2... all i need is the $$$ to do so...
dave m
btw.... there is very little blind worship here of the k-5.... it is what it is... an improvement over the k-7 et al... not a gift from god..... sincerely, pope benedict....

stanleyk · 04-13-2011, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by Rondec

Or, maybe they like fast, long lenses and really narrow depth of field. Seems like wide to normal is the best range for m4/3.

Good point. I bought a K mount and M42 converters and rarely use them because the lens just seems to big for the camera. For me, it would seem that M4/3 cameras are really better suited for smaller lenses. I certainly don't think they replace a DSLR for many applications, but depending on the type of photography you enjoy doing they can be a real pleasure to use. I almost exclusively print on a Canon Pixma Pro 9500 MKII and never on anything bigger than 13x19 so as far as image quality is concerned they work for me.

The Panasonic 20mm is a really great lens. I find I use that more than any lens I own but it suits me. I would always recommend that someone try out a camera or lens to see if it's what they like using.

I certainly wouldn't think of using a M 4/3 for wildlife photography as an example. Probably could be done but surely a DSLR would be better.

stanleyk · 04-13-2011, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by dcmsox2004

fwiw.. a two week 'tour' of any dslr is only, imho, a cursory, thumbnail review at best..... the most thorough/respected reviews are by those who have been using the k-5 for months.... it'd be nice to have a complementary camera like the gf1 or ep1 or 2... all i need is the $$$ to do so...
dave m
btw.... there is very little blind worship here of the k-5.... it is what it is... an improvement over the k-7 et al... not a gift from god..... sincerely, pope benedict....

For what it's worth, I have and EP2 and an EPL2. While I really love the build quality on the EP2, I think for a lot of other things the EPL2 is the better camera.

Eventually I plan on getting a GH2 next year The K5 is probably all the DSLR I will ever need. Unfortunately they don't sell just the body only or at least I haven't been able to find one. I have all the M 4/3 lenses I need and quite frankly the Olympus + viewfinder is a really good set up for me.

That said if I had to do it all over again, I would probably just go straight the GH2. I'm not too sure how good the kit zoom lens is (on the M4/3 forum there are a lot of advocates for the 14-140mm but it's rather pricey and I wouldn't need anything above say 45mm). Their prime lenses are really good as is the 7-14. They are releasing a 25mm f1.4 in May or June.

jogiba · 04-13-2011, 03:34 PM

Quote:

I won’t be acquiring one of these. The improvements over the K20D are substantial, but the astonishing thing is, they don’t come up to the level of the Lumix GF1.

Apples and oranges? Of course that’s a problem. But the improved AF of the K5 is sluggish and erratic compared to the GF1. The improved SBR doesn’t impress me except in comparison with earlier Pentax dslr cameras, not the GF1, despite the sensor size difference. Whatever DxO says, I see an improvement over what earlier Pentax bodies did, but precious little over what I’ve grown used to, shooting with the GF1 for over half a year. It wouldn’t be the first time that I’ve found supposedly rigorous technical test parameters don’t actually relate to using equipment in the real world.

The resolution of the K5 files is, well, nice. Nothing to write home about. The problem is, the GF1 files make better 20” wide prints because the superiority of the 14 and 20mm lenses, handled by reliable AF, coupled to the incorporated-into-ACR corrections, beat the hell out of the Pentax 21mm lens (using the latest ACR-incorporated Profile). The Lumix 14mm also surpasses the Pentax 21, and the Pentax 15mm just looks pathetic in comparison to either of them. The 35mm Macro from Pentax remains spectacular, when the camera focuses it correctly.

When I interpolate similar files from the GF1 and the K5 up to around twenty inches to make a print the GF1 wins every time, despite the greater degree of enlargement it needs. What can I say? It’s the print that counts.

Wow, and I thought the GH2 that is better than the GF1 was only good in video mode.

Urkeldaedalus · 04-13-2011, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by cateto

Thanks for the heads-up.

On the opposite side, a reputed photographer, Carl Weese (who did a stunnin job in reviewing the Pentax K10D for The Online Photographer back in the day), has recently posted his impressions about the K-5, and he's not so enthusiastic.

His short comment is here:
Working Pictures: Technical Notes: Testing the Pentax K5: no pix this post

When you look at the type of shots Weese has in his blog, the K-5 would indeed be overkill. Any advantage the K-5 has over a M4/3 camera would be minimal, especially for the money difference, which I take to be his main conclusion.

Also, it seems like his main criticism isn't of the K-5, it's that Panasonic has better wide primes, which is what he's looking for. Although I'd be interested to see his print where the DA15 looked "pathetic," because that is a pretty well acclaimed lens in Pentax land.

04-12-2011, 04:53 AM	#1
bhairavp Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Mumbai, India Posts: 399	Imaging Resource Full K-5 review Pentax K-5 Digital Camera Exposure - Full Review - The Imaging Resource! Not sure if this has been posted yet. They really liked the camera.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Imaging Resource reviews K-x - in full	rawr	Pentax News and Rumors	4	03-17-2010 01:55 PM
Imaging-Resource full review of K-x	UnknownVT	Pentax DSLR Discussion	1	03-12-2010 12:35 PM
Full K-7 review up at Imaging Resource	gazonk	Pentax DSLR Discussion	15	08-23-2009 08:11 AM
K20D Review on Imaging Resource	ftpaddict	Pentax News and Rumors	7	02-18-2009 02:55 PM
Imaging Resource K20D Review	Rush2112	Pentax DSLR Discussion	5	02-17-2009 07:29 AM

04-13-2011, 01:01 AM	#2
cateto Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Spain Posts: 189	Thanks for the heads-up. On the opposite side, a reputed photographer, Carl Weese (who did a stunnin job in reviewing the Pentax K10D for The Online Photographer back in the day), has recently posted his impressions about the K-5, and he's not so enthusiastic. His short comment is here: Working Pictures: Technical Notes: Testing the Pentax K5: no pix this post

04-13-2011, 01:39 AM	#3
Michaelina2 Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: SE Michigan USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,300	Originally posted by cateto Thanks for the heads-up. On the opposite side, a reputed photographer, Carl Weese (who did a stunnin job in reviewing the Pentax K10D for The Online Photographer back in the day), has recently posted his impressions about the K-5, and he's not so enthusiastic. To be fair, in a follow-up comment he said... "So, just to be clear, my decision to pass should in no way be taken as a "don't buy" recommendation. On the contrary, if you are working with a K10/20 (I've never used a K7) and can afford to upgrade, you'll love the K5." Since he makes his living selling his photographs, it seems his main issue was justifying the cost of a K-5 to him when he is pleased with the results he's getting from his current set-up. A reasonable business consideration IMHO. See... Working Pictures: More Signs of Spring, and another technical note Cheers...

04-13-2011, 03:34 AM	#4
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,653	It sounds to me like the two issues he expressed were not so good auto focus and not so good lenses (he was using the DA 40, 15, and 35). Surprises me about the lenses, but according to him, the Panasonic lenses are just so much better.

04-13-2011, 04:12 AM	#5
asp1880 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Lyngby, Copenhagen Photos: Albums Posts: 742	He cares most about short prime lenses. It's harder to make a great short lens for a DSLR than for a mirrorless camera, because a short lens design can benefit from a short register distance (it must be true, I read it somewhere on the internet ...). So maybe the Panasonic m4/3 short primes just are really good? Sincerely, --Anders.

04-13-2011, 04:47 AM	#6
stanleyk Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Taylor, Texas Posts: 1,018	Originally posted by asp1880 He cares most about short prime lenses. It's harder to make a great short lens for a DSLR than for a mirrorless camera, because a short lens design can benefit from a short register distance (it must be true, I read it somewhere on the internet ...). So maybe the Panasonic m4/3 short primes just are really good? Sincerely, --Anders. I have the Panasonic 20, 14, 45, and 7-14. As a person who also uses the 31, 43, and 77 I will assure you that the Panasonic lenses are very good. I find most of the people on this forum who dismiss M4/3 don't actually have or use a M4/3 camera.

04-13-2011, 04:55 AM	#7
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,653	Originally posted by stanleyk I have the Panasonic 20, 14, 45, and 7-14. As a person who also uses the 31, 43, and 77 I will assure you that the Panasonic lenses are very good. I find most of the people on this forum who dismiss M4/3 don't actually have or use a M4/3 camera. Or, maybe they like fast, long lenses and really narrow depth of field. Seems like wide to normal is the best range for m4/3.

04-13-2011, 06:12 AM	#8
glanglois Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Madison, Wis., USA Posts: 1,506	Wide creates better ergonomics by better balance. Long lenses look as if they'd be very awkward on a small M4/3 body, particularly if one is using the LCD for composition. Of course an EVF can be added but by the time I'd get done, I'd have spent a pile of money and still have to carry a decent-sized bag around to hold the piece parts. OTOH, one M4/3 body and one pancake lens is a nice package if your photography fits in that small envelope. Mine does not ....

04-13-2011, 07:32 AM	#9
johnmflores Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Somerville, NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,361	Originally posted by stanleyk I have the Panasonic 20, 14, 45, and 7-14. As a person who also uses the 31, 43, and 77 I will assure you that the Panasonic lenses are very good. I find most of the people on this forum who dismiss M4/3 don't actually have or use a M4/3 camera. I concur. I have the Panny 20 and the Pentax DA Limiteds (21, 35, 40, 70). The Panny 20 is very good. Some of it no doubt due to in-camera processing (distortion correction, etc...), but that doesn't bother me in the least. It's the output that counts...

04-13-2011, 10:25 AM	#10
Fontan Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: 5th floor Posts: 1,610	The way k-5 is worshipped by some around here, I am utterly stunned that he is not being crucified on this forum.

04-13-2011, 11:56 AM	#11
dcmsox2004 Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: rhode island Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,522	fwiw.. a two week 'tour' of any dslr is only, imho, a cursory, thumbnail review at best..... the most thorough/respected reviews are by those who have been using the k-5 for months.... it'd be nice to have a complementary camera like the gf1 or ep1 or 2... all i need is the $$$ to do so... dave m btw.... there is very little blind worship here of the k-5.... it is what it is... an improvement over the k-7 et al... not a gift from god..... sincerely, pope benedict....

04-13-2011, 03:16 PM	#12
stanleyk Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Taylor, Texas Posts: 1,018	Originally posted by Rondec Or, maybe they like fast, long lenses and really narrow depth of field. Seems like wide to normal is the best range for m4/3. Good point. I bought a K mount and M42 converters and rarely use them because the lens just seems to big for the camera. For me, it would seem that M4/3 cameras are really better suited for smaller lenses. I certainly don't think they replace a DSLR for many applications, but depending on the type of photography you enjoy doing they can be a real pleasure to use. I almost exclusively print on a Canon Pixma Pro 9500 MKII and never on anything bigger than 13x19 so as far as image quality is concerned they work for me. The Panasonic 20mm is a really great lens. I find I use that more than any lens I own but it suits me. I would always recommend that someone try out a camera or lens to see if it's what they like using. I certainly wouldn't think of using a M 4/3 for wildlife photography as an example. Probably could be done but surely a DSLR would be better.

04-13-2011, 03:22 PM	#13
stanleyk Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Taylor, Texas Posts: 1,018	Originally posted by dcmsox2004 fwiw.. a two week 'tour' of any dslr is only, imho, a cursory, thumbnail review at best..... the most thorough/respected reviews are by those who have been using the k-5 for months.... it'd be nice to have a complementary camera like the gf1 or ep1 or 2... all i need is the $$$ to do so... dave m btw.... there is very little blind worship here of the k-5.... it is what it is... an improvement over the k-7 et al... not a gift from god..... sincerely, pope benedict.... For what it's worth, I have and EP2 and an EPL2. While I really love the build quality on the EP2, I think for a lot of other things the EPL2 is the better camera. Eventually I plan on getting a GH2 next year The K5 is probably all the DSLR I will ever need. Unfortunately they don't sell just the body only or at least I haven't been able to find one. I have all the M 4/3 lenses I need and quite frankly the Olympus + viewfinder is a really good set up for me. That said if I had to do it all over again, I would probably just go straight the GH2. I'm not too sure how good the kit zoom lens is (on the M4/3 forum there are a lot of advocates for the 14-140mm but it's rather pricey and I wouldn't need anything above say 45mm). Their prime lenses are really good as is the 7-14. They are releasing a 25mm f1.4 in May or June.

04-13-2011, 03:34 PM	#14
jogiba Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Millstone,NJ Posts: 6,491	Quote: I won’t be acquiring one of these. The improvements over the K20D are substantial, but the astonishing thing is, they don’t come up to the level of the Lumix GF1. Apples and oranges? Of course that’s a problem. But the improved AF of the K5 is sluggish and erratic compared to the GF1. The improved SBR doesn’t impress me except in comparison with earlier Pentax dslr cameras, not the GF1, despite the sensor size difference. Whatever DxO says, I see an improvement over what earlier Pentax bodies did, but precious little over what I’ve grown used to, shooting with the GF1 for over half a year. It wouldn’t be the first time that I’ve found supposedly rigorous technical test parameters don’t actually relate to using equipment in the real world. The resolution of the K5 files is, well, nice. Nothing to write home about. The problem is, the GF1 files make better 20” wide prints because the superiority of the 14 and 20mm lenses, handled by reliable AF, coupled to the incorporated-into-ACR corrections, beat the hell out of the Pentax 21mm lens (using the latest ACR-incorporated Profile). The Lumix 14mm also surpasses the Pentax 21, and the Pentax 15mm just looks pathetic in comparison to either of them. The 35mm Macro from Pentax remains spectacular, when the camera focuses it correctly. When I interpolate similar files from the GF1 and the K5 up to around twenty inches to make a print the GF1 wins every time, despite the greater degree of enlargement it needs. What can I say? It’s the print that counts. Wow, and I thought the GH2 that is better than the GF1 was only good in video mode.

04-13-2011, 04:17 PM	#15
Urkeldaedalus Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Iowa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,369	Originally posted by cateto Thanks for the heads-up. On the opposite side, a reputed photographer, Carl Weese (who did a stunnin job in reviewing the Pentax K10D for The Online Photographer back in the day), has recently posted his impressions about the K-5, and he's not so enthusiastic. His short comment is here: Working Pictures: Technical Notes: Testing the Pentax K5: no pix this post When you look at the type of shots Weese has in his blog, the K-5 would indeed be overkill. Any advantage the K-5 has over a M4/3 camera would be minimal, especially for the money difference, which I take to be his main conclusion. Also, it seems like his main criticism isn't of the K-5, it's that Panasonic has better wide primes, which is what he's looking for. Although I'd be interested to see his print where the DA15 looked "pathetic," because that is a pretty well acclaimed lens in Pentax land.