Thanks for great answers.
I had heard that the AF was a problem with the K-5, but I've also seen something about a firmware fixing the problem (at least improving it). I am aware that the K-5 II/IIs are improvements compared to the K-5, but I think it's a bit above my budget for my first SLR (unless there are extremely good reasons to go for one of those instead of the cheaper K-30).
But yes, I was first looking at the K-30, but suddenly saw that the K-5 wasn't much more expensive, so I was wondering if the K-5 was worth the extra money.
(As in will it what will be the "most value for money" kind of thing). And if the K-5 had any annoying troubles that would make the K-30 a smarter choice for someone quite new to this kind of photography.
I initially thought to buy a quite old and cheap camera house initially, until I learned the trade a lot better, and new my needs a lot better, and maybe buy some lenses instead, but new sounds a bit more tempting.
But as I said, I will be taking lots of action photos. Both of sporting events and animals. There are no significant differences between the cameras with regards to that?
I might take some video (but this is not particularly important), I've seen that the K-30 is better in that regard, and I don't think I would really need to use an external mic.