[amatula]

Evening, I'm going to take a slightly different approach to answering your question. I have a K5 and a K5IIs (also a K1 too, but were talking crop here) that are now 10 and ~7 years old. Same magnesium alloy body construction as the KP. Probably about 10,000 and 5,000 frames on them. The KP should last you quite a while. I would not worry about the Pentax build quality.

For a lens, you might consider the DA 20-40 Limited. It's a short zoom, very mild wide angle to very mild zoom, small and light with a excellent image quality.

Pentax has always been noted for their overall image quality. They have always been able to pull more performance out of Sony sensors than Sony has been able to do.

I would also like to touch on the topic of the JPG format. In various comparisons of the factory set JPG standard output, Pentax's JPG is panned next to everyone else - Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji, etc. The other brands tune their JPG output to sell cameras. Bright, colorful, sharp, punchy, etc. (and by doing this the other brands degrade their overall image quality). Pentax tunes their JPG output to retain as much information and image detail as possible.

Now, you can tune/tailor your JPG output (on the camera body setup) to your heart's content to have it match whomever else, which is fine. However, I might suggest that if you are going to shoot JPG, shoot JPG+Raw. Why? The JPG format is destructive. Once you make a change, you can never go back - you loose information. That is the base characteristic of the JPG format. JPG is an 8 bit format (you only have 256 colors/tones), where in with RAW you have 14 bits of color information (16,384 colors/tones). By storing your camera's output in JPG you are losing (throwing away) 97% of the image's captured information. Normally, it doesn't matter on most days, with most images. However, where it does matter is in the shadows, and being able to recover the image details within the shadows, along with the wider color tonal changes and transitions. By shooting in JPG+Raw - you get the best of both worlds, getting a quick JPG image right out of the camera, but also having the RAW file should you ever want to go back and process your images with out destroying any of the information and bring out the best of the image and its image quality.

interested_observer, Thank you! I really appreciate that information!
It may be the best explanation I have read of the advantage of shooting raw (I do not often read of this though and haven't sought out an explanation). My search for a new DSLR has significantly increased my knowledge, much more than in the 5 years I have previously owned a camera. I am excited about what I have learned and look forward to applying that knowledge!

I will give that a go for sure!!

Again, thank you - this is so helpful!
All the best,
Annie

---------- Post added 03-14-20 at 09:59 AM ----------

The KP would be an excellent and easy choice for your type of photography. The lens is your more difficult choice, given your request that it "won't break my piggy bank savings" - it might help others to know what that means regarding the size of your budget. You might also consider whether you feel comfortable about putting a bulky lens on a compact DSLR - i am definitely not, and prefer the DA primes (or the DA 20-40 zoom) and certainly nothing bigger than the (under 1 pound) DA 18-135 or DA 55-300 PLM. Final thoughts: excessive pixel-peeping is an unnecessary obsession and should be avoided - most viewers will look at images not pixels. But, of course, to each his/her own.

Philip

Philp,
Thank you.
I am a hiker/climber and I want to keep weight down. I googled yesterday and see the KP weight is 705 g or so, which is more than I was hoping -- but it sounds just what I am looking for so I am still seriously considering it.

Thus far as I read the 16-85, 16-45, 20-40, and 16-50 (possibly the 18-135). The determining factors will be:
-. weight
- image quality

I wouldn't want to pay more than $900 for a lens. That is high but I know I can find a excellent quality lens at a site like mbp.com or keh.com used.

Thank you so much! I was so excited to wake up this morning to so many helpful responses to my questions!
Annie

[aslyfox]

should anyone be concern the ability to use JPEG and/or RAW

there is a solution if you choose a Pentax camera that has two SD slots

you can set each one separately

of course that excludes the KP

leaving the K 1, K 1 II ( full frame sensors ), K 3 II and K 3 ( ASP-C sensors )

Two Card Slots

The K-3 has two SD card slots, something Pentax users (other than 645D owners of course) have been requesting for a while. This is particularly handy given that wireless tethering requires a Flu-card to be inserted. One can thus have the Flu card in one slot and a high-capacity/high-speed card in the other.

With two memory cards inserted, the options for image storage are:

When card #1 runs full, writing continues on card #2
Write to both cards in parallel (thus creating a backup)
In RAW+ mode: Write RAW to one card and JPGs to the other card
In movie mode, you can select which of the two cards is used for file storage. You cannot do so in sequential mode for stills, however: a strange omission. . . .

Read more at: Pentax K-3 Review - Highlights and New Features | PentaxForums.com Reviews
__________________________________

of the lenses the OP listed, I would advise checking out the in depth review and user reviews of all but espcecially the DA 16-85mm

HD Pentax-DA 16-85mm F3.5-5.6
Introduction
The HD Pentax-DA 16-85mm F3.5-5.6 ED DC WR joined the Pentax K-mount lens lineup in late 2014 as an upper-end standard zoom lens. We find this lens to be an important addition to the Pentax APS-C system as it provides users with a highly-versatile 5x zoom range and a very wide field of view while maintaining a high standard of image quality. Simultaneously, it fills a gap in the Pentax lens lineup by competing directly with similar lenses from other brands, such Nikon's 16-85mm and Canon's 15-85mm.

This lens is packed with some of the latest technologies from Pentax, including silent DC autofocus, weather sealing, and HD coating. Its optical design prioritizes image quality, compactness, and flexibility over aperture speed. . . .

Read more at: https://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/hd-pentax-da-16-85mm-f35-56/introductio...#ixzz6GgHMRXuh

____________________________________________________________________

Description:
The HD Pentax-DA 16-85mm zoom was presented at Photokina 2014 and is expected to ship in November of 2014.

This zoom represents an upgrade from the 18-55mm kit lens being wider as well as having a longer reach and adding to that silent autofocus thanks to a built-in DC autofocus motor.

The lens is weather resistant.

Read more at: https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/hd-pentax-da-16-85mm-f35-56-ed-dc-w...#ixzz6GgHei86R

[MrB1]

Philp,
Thank you.
I am a hiker/climber and I want to keep weight down. I googled yesterday and see the KP weight is 705 g or so, which is more than I was hoping -- but it sounds just what I am looking for so I am still seriously considering it.

Thus far as I read the 16-85, 16-45, 20-40, and 16-50 (possibly the 18-135). The determining factors will be:
-. weight
- image quality

I wouldn't want to pay more than $900 for a lens.
Annie

Annie, your comments here would appear to lead you to the HD 20-40 WR Limited zoom lens. Excellent image quality, good-looking and well-balanced, with great quality metal build - a perfect partner for a KP, being compact and light-weight compared to the other zooms. For your $900 you could probably also get the HD 55-300 PLM WR Zoom - another excellent modern Pentax lens for extending your work into telephoto landscapes and wildlife shots. As others have advised, study the lens reviews and example images available here in the PentaxForums.

Philip

[pres589]

18-135 from about 24mm to 75mm is very sharp and provides excellent image quality. It's not bad, in my experience, from 75mm to 100mm. 18mm to 24mm is okay if stopped well down.

There are some manual focus primes from 3rd parties as well as the DA 12-24 and the DA 15 that would be a good anchor at the ultra-wide end of things.


Very fast searching on the bay of auction sites tells me $800 USD (plus possible shipping costs) would net me a DA 12-24, a DA 18-135, and a respectable tripod. $650 if going with the DA 15 SMC and 18-135. These are probably my favorite value-for-money solutions to starting a Pentax crop kit for landscapes & general shooting.

[rogerstg]

should anyone be concern the ability to use JPEG and/or RAW

there is a solution if you choose a Pentax camera that has two SD slots

There's no need for two cards since most (if not all) systems can write jpg + raw to the same card.

[aslyfox]

There's no need for two cards since most (if not all) systems can write jpg + raw to the same card.

makes you wonder why Pentax has cameras with two card slots then

is it necessary for everyone to have a Pentax with two card slots ?

of course not

but I like to have them in my K 3 and K 3 II

[pres589]

Second card for redundancy. Safety net.

[rogerstg]

makes you wonder why Pentax has cameras with two card slots then

Not really. I was only addressing the ability to write both jpeg and raw doesn't require two cards.

[SteveinSLC]

You could also save some money by going to a K-70. Image quality is going to be pretty much the same as the KP, and while not quite as rugged, it is still WR.

[mikesbike]

Annie, your comments here would appear to lead you to the HD 20-40 WR Limited zoom lens. Excellent image quality, good-looking and well-balanced, with great quality metal build - a perfect partner for a KP, being compact and light-weight compared to the other zooms. For your $900 you could probably also get the HD 55-300 PLM WR Zoom - another excellent modern Pentax lens for extending your work into telephoto landscapes and wildlife shots. As others have advised, study the lens reviews and example images available here in the PentaxForums.

Philip

I concur- this would be a great ensemble. Very fine quality with low weight, and ideal for hiking and extensive getting around.

[interested_observer]

interested_observer, Thank you! I really appreciate that information!
It may be the best explanation I have read of the advantage of shooting raw (I do not often read of this though and haven't sought out an explanation). My search for a new DSLR has significantly increased my knowledge, much more than in the 5 years I have previously owned a camera. I am excited about what I have learned and look forward to applying that knowledge!

I will give that a go for sure!!

Again, thank you - this is so helpful!
All the best,
Annie

Morning - Here is a youtube video on the differences across JPG images - straight out of the camera with factory settings. The takeaway idea here is that Pentax does nothing to degrade the JPG image in terms of image quality for their factory settings.

You Tube

You Tube

Also, here is a website that compares JPG with Raw - that has comparison images, that may be helpful. Regardless you are comparing 28 vs 214 When you bring in color (red, green, blue) the numbers expand, but you still have the same relationship of JPG loosing 97% of the information.

• https://photographylife.com/raw-vs-jpeg

Here is a comparison of the KP to the Sony and to a Fuji - the guy shoots Nikon professionally

You Tube

You Tube

You Tube

You Tube

[aslyfox]

Not really. I was only addressing the ability to write both jpeg and raw doesn't require two cards.

does writing raw and jpeg to 1 sd card slow things down ????

As opposed to using raw to one sd card and jpeg to the other???

If so
Is the delay significant???

[mikesbike]

To each individual and their needs, experimentation as to which serves them better can be had through RAW + JPEG when one's time and conditions permit. JPEG images are from RAW as processed by the camera. The quality of out-of-camera results do vary from one to another camera model, depending on how good the camera model's processor. Therefore, how much visible loss there will be in the JPEG also is dependent on how good the camera's processor is. One good thing the K-5 has going for it is having one more quality setting for JPEGs with less compression and closer to RAW than the usual highest quality JPEGs, also the ISO 80 setting.

The end result to be had from RAW images by the individual will depend largely on that individual's skill in post processing. One can also shoot RAW and use the camera's settings for JPEG images for processing, then save as a TIFF to obtain maximum DR, color gradients, etc. With experimentation, one can discover what is best for them.

As to myself, I do not subscribe to any editing service such as Adobe, but just use what is supplied with the camera, which has been good enough for me.

I wonder if that guy in the video knew enough to set "Fine Sharpening"in the Custom Image menu of the KP before doing his JPEG images comparison testing?

[Des]

A belated welcome to PF Annie.

I've had 5 different Pentax DSLR models and they have all offered robustness, very good image quality and great value for money. For your intended uses (climbing, hiking, landscapes), the KP is a good choice. It is solidly built but still compact and light weight (for a DSLR). Its dynamic range is good and it is capable of producing images with rich colours and good detail. It has an excellent feature set. The K-70 has many of the same features, but I'd suggest springing for the KP particularly because of its mag alloy chassis.

As for lenses, we tend to obsess about the differences, but any of those mentioned (e.g. Sigma 10-20, Pentax DA 12-24, DA 15 Limited, DA 20-40 Ltd, DA 16-50, DA 16-85, DA 18-135, DA 55-300) would be capable of producing good quality images. I agree that you don't really need the weight and bulk of an f2.8 lens like the 16-50 for landscapes, as you would generally be shooting at narrow apertures anyway.

The first question IMO is whether you prefer the convenience of a wide-ranging WR zoom like the DA 16-85 or DA 18-135 or are prepared to make the lens changes required with prime lenses (e.g. DA 15 Limited, DA 35 f2.4, DA 50 f1.8, DA 70 Limited) or a shorter range zoom (e.g. DA 20-40 Limited). The Limited lenses are quite compact and light weight, have excellent build quality and offer something special in image quality - they are a unique Pentax feature - but they would involve a lot more lens changes. If you carry say a 15, 20-40 and 70, the weight would be much the same as carrying a 16-85 and the cost would be significantly higher. I'd suggest that you start with a 16-85 and complement it later with a prime or two or another zoom (maybe a wide zoom like the DA 12-24 or Sigma 10-20) when you see what suits you.

If I may add two suggestions, especially about shots in the lovely dark deep woods. First, take a tripod if possible - for light weight consider a compact travel one like the Sirui T-025SK. Even something as basic as a Gorillapod makes a difference. You just cannot rely on shooting handheld to get those milky shots of waterfalls or for using the slow shutter speeds required in low light. The KP is good for high ISO shots but you will generally get much better results in landscapes with longer exposures and lower ISO than shooting handheld with high ISO.

Second, shoot RAW even if you also shoot jpg. That will at least give you the option of processing the better shots later. Yes there is a learning curve with post-processing software but even some basic adjustments of exposures can make a big difference. Here's an example. This is a shot out of camera (with the KP and DA 15 Ltd on a tripod), converted from the RAW file with no processing.


Here is the same shot after some mild processing of the RAW file (mainly adjusting the exposures in different parts of the image):


Admittedly if I had shot RAW + jpg rather than just RAW, the out-of-camera jpg would have been better than the straight converted shot above, but there is no way the camera would have made the exposure adjustments I could make easily with software to get the second image.

Shots in the lovely dark deep woods are the very sorts of shots for which you want to shoot on a tripod and shoot in RAW format. Otherwise you might as well leave the camera at home and just use your phone.

[aslyfox]

a warning about Pentax Limited Lenses

for some, they can become habit forming :

the limiteds do they live up to the reputation and why

Read more at: the limiteds do they live up to the reputation and why - Page 23 - PentaxForums.com

[ the thread does have a lot of posts if you decide to read it all ]