[ramseybuckeye]

I have a K-50 and use a K-S2 at work and really there's very little difference that I can see in IQ. The only noticeable difference in normal use is that the K-50 has a deeper grip, I haven't had that K-S2 long enough to use everything, and only use it with a DA18-135 and DA 50/1.8. Camera alone I would take the KS-2, it is newer and should have several improvements. But between these two lens options there is no contest, take the Tamron. I would get the K-50 and Tamron.

[Darley]

... it appears the k-s1 is also not as good as the k-5, in part at least by dxomark sensor ratings.

I wouldn't take any notice of sensor ratings because they do not represent real-word situations. There are many variables to consider when trying to assess IQ, such as the lens and the operator! I used to look at dxo but their ratings and my assessment of IQ never matched. For example the K200D has a very low rating compared to the K-x, but in comparing images from these two cameras side-by-side I ascertained that the K200D produced much better pictures. Photography is an art, not a science.

[Imp]

^^ +++

[UncleVanya]

The KS-2 lacks the ability to optically trigger a wireless p-ttl flash without adding an external af360fgz or af540fg on the hot shoe.

The buffer also isn't as capable as the k50 for continuous speed. This likely is due to increased file sizes due to the extra megapixels.

---------- Post added 11-17-15 at 11:08 PM ----------

Rereading this makes the post seem negative. Far from it. The ks2 owners I know love it.

[Tclaw]

How much is your budget?

Looking to stay in the $500/600 range which the 2 options I'm looking at fall within. However I'd be willing to go a bit higher for a killer deal.

[Tclaw]

Out of curiosity, how did you conclude you wanted a Pentax body over Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus, and the rest?

Pentax appears to offer more bang for the buck.

[clackers]

Well, let's be honest, a good zoom is what covers the wide angle for most people. A 40mm XS or 35mm f2.4 is a better prime than most of the legacy glass, (and the 21 or 15 piss on any zoom at the wide end - even the really good ones!). Depends what you're after.

I'd prefer a cheap second hand da 35 f2.4 + k-s2 over a k-50 + tammy. That's not to say the tammy or k50 are bad options, just that I'd prefer that set up.

And yes, in the real world, the k-s1 produces noticeably better images than a k-5. (Having used both of those in the real world). Aside from the ropey auto focus, the k-5 is a nicer camera than the k-s1, and admittedly the ergonomics of the k-s1 could be better; but we're talking about the k-50 (not as good as k-5) and the k-s2 (better than the k-s1). I'll stick with my k-3 for now, but I wouldn't want to go back to a k-5. I could however trade my k-3 for a k-s1 (not that I'd want to), and still be happy.

I think my advice to someone getting their first DSLR is to get a good zoom to begin with, and then they may or may not go down the path of primes as you and I have, Rob. :-)

[Tclaw]

I'd take the k-s2. In the long run, having the tammy lens would (potentially) be a better option, Granted, But only if you like zooms.

good quality primes (28, 50, 120, 135, etc), are relatively cheap, and the k-s2 will have a sensor that can fully appreciate that glass. The k-50 is a little weak IQ wise in comparison. Yes the tammy is a good lens (and you should always invest in glass before camera), but it's no match for a 50mm f1.7, and frankly unless you're willing to commit mega bucks to a zoom, they'll never be as good as a decent DA or FA prime. (Speaking as an owner of the 8-16 sigma, 12-24 da, and 50-136 da*).

I appreciate the quality of prime lenses but at this point l'm more interested in a high quality wide to short tele zoom in order to simplify my kit. However that doesn't mean I won't look to add a lens or two down the road.

Having seen first hand how much better the k-s1 is compared to the k-5 (image quality wise), the only reason I'd recommend the k-5 would be because I had one to sell.

The lens would be a better long term investment, but it's possibly the wrong investment. Just to be annoying and throw an alternative point of view into the ring....

[clackers]

I wouldn't take any notice of sensor ratings because they do not represent real-word situations. There are many variables to consider when trying to assess IQ, such as the lens and the operator! I used to look at dxo but their ratings and my assessment of IQ never matched. For example the K200D has a very low rating compared to the K-x, but in comparing images from these two cameras side-by-side I ascertained that the K200D produced much better pictures. Photography is an art, not a science.

The DXO ratings legitimately included dynamic range and ISO performance, both related to pixel size, but not detail or sharpness performance, where the K-S2 has 20Mp and no AA filter.

[dansamy]

Pentax appears to offer more bang for the buck.

They do indeed!

Pentax K-S1 DSLR Camera with 18-55mm Lens (Black) | 06424

Pentax K-S2 Weatherproof DSLR Camera 2 WR Lens Bundle

[cmar]

Go the Tamron, I have that lens, formerly with a Kr now a K5, it's an excellent lens, and will see you through a few bodies (as long as you stick with Pentax) I have Tamron zooms and primes I still use and I bought them for a ME super back in the 1980's. The K50 is a good no nonsense beginners DSLR.
An Australian photography magazine (known for it's Canikon leanings) reviewed one and had to admit after putting it through every possible test, "It's hard not to like the K50, Pentax has managed to stuff a lot of advanced features into an entry level camera, for an entry level price".

[Davidparis]

+1 for the K50/Tamron.

[dakight]

From personal experience I can say that the extra speed of the Tamron lens will be very handy if the image quality is acceptable at wide apertures.


I have never used the DA 18-50 retractable lens but to be the "fiddly" deployment is a non issue because that would be done once when you start a shoot. The lens can and should be left in the extended position while shooting and only be retracted for storage. I know that the DA 18-55 "kit lens" is better, much better in fact, than its reputation. There's a kind of snobbery about kit lenses but the truth is that either (18-55, 50-200) of them is quite capable of producing very nice images and my recollection from the comparison that was done here by the forum is that the 18-50 was similar.


I have a K-50 and I like it very much but if I were buying a new camera body at the point in time, I would opt for the K-S2 simply because it is an advance in technology and capability. The K-50 is nearing the end of it's life cycle while the K-S2 is just beginning. The newer sensor with higher resolution will be capable of producing better image quality over a wider range of conditions. The kit lens that comes with it is a starting point and for a serious photographer will not be the last or only lens ever mounted to the body.


Going beyond the 2 choices presented I think I would recommend that the OP at least take a look at the K-3. The prices are very attractive right now and the body is much more capable than either of the other choices. In any case, don't be afraid of the kit lens; it may not be the top of the line professional glass but it is capable and competent for learning the craft. More and better glass can be acquired as the budget permits.

[northcoastgreg]

I know that the DA 18-55 "kit lens" is better, much better in fact, than its reputation. There's a kind of snobbery about kit lenses but the truth is that either (18-55, 50-200) of them is quite capable of producing very nice images

Maybe so. But however good the DA 18-55 is deemed to be, that doesn't prevent the Tammy 17-50 from being better. The Tammy is not only faster, it's sharper edge to edge throughout the entire range of the zoom and features better contrast.

The newer sensor with higher resolution will be capable of producing better image quality over a wider range of conditions.

Other than the slight advantage due to extra MP and lack of AA filter, there's very little difference in image quality or even capability between the K-50 and the K-S2. The fact that something is newer doesn't automatically make it better (although newer is often more expensive). There's been no dramatic improvements in sensor tech since 2010, so what we mostly get with upgrades is more bells and whistles and (at least with flagship models) better AF. While the better AF might be useful (although not so much if all your shooting with is the 18-55, which is hardly a sports lens!), bells and whistles are often aimed more at the technophiles and gearheads than photographers.

The K-50 Tamron 17-50 combination will consistently outperform, in terms of image quality, the KS-2 or K-3 with the DA 18-55. The difference between the kit lens and the Tamron zoom is greater than the difference between the sensors in any of the cameras under discussion.

More and better glass can be acquired as the budget permits.

Or a more capable camera can be acquired as the budget permits (although, to be sure, the K-50 is a very capable camera: to get a more capable camera, you'd have to go to one of the flagship models, and even then there wouldn't be a huge difference).

[PKMike]

Looking to stay in the $500/600 range which the 2 options I'm looking at fall within. However I'd be willing to go a bit higher for a killer deal.

The K-3 is currently $649 with DA 50 lens and a flash (Adorama). You could sell the lens and flash for about $100 and buy a used Tammy for about $200. I doubt you would ever regret the K-3. It is in a different league than the other two bodies you mentioned. It will also retain a higher resale value, certainly in the long run.
If you like the K-S2 look at Costco (online). $499 with 18-50 AND 50-200 + card + bag. Again you could sell lenses and buy a Tammy if you want or keep them for more versatility in focal length.
Personally I have considered adding the K-S2 because I think the articulating screen would be very useful (to me). I find it difficult to pay that much when the K-3 is so close in price. If only the K-3II had come with an articulating screen...
The K-50 is also a solid choice and a good value.
I would agree that the Tamron is a better choice than the kit lens.