Ok guys, I'm making a decision soon - K7 with 50-135mm or K5?

crossover37 · 04-18-2011, 02:14 PM

I will be shooting raw, always do. Truthfully, I don't use high ISO that often and when I do I don't want to go above ISO 3200. The noise from my Kx would look bad but ya 90% of the time I keep my ISO below 1600. The Kx doesn't feel rugged and professional to me.

How does the image qualty compare? If the ISO is the only difference than that's not a huge problem. I would hope the K7 would be better in most everything else though.

DogLover · 04-18-2011, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by crossover37

I would hope the K7 would be better in most everything else though.

It is, and it definitely feels more professional. My wife has a K2000 (the most unfairly maligned body in recent Pentax history), which is essentially the same body as the Kx and I can assure you that there is a huge difference. She likes that hers is so small and light and in fact I can't get it away from her to sell it (I wanted her to start using my K7, but alas, she did not care what I wanted), but she is not what you would call a serious user. She only wants a camera so that she has something to do while I'm shooting.

InlawBiker · 04-18-2011, 03:57 PM

I would say - If you're doing real jobs for money and can get away with the K-7 99% of the time then why buy the K-5 when the K-7 will do? Eventually the K-5 will also someday be $700 on the used market while the lens will still be $1000.

I don't think it's very hard to find a K-7 with under 6000 clicks for about $700.

On the other hand perhaps the extra $700 for a K-5 can be made in only a few jobs, in which case why not just get it now?

That's my way of not answering your question

HEEGZ · 04-18-2011, 05:45 PM

Originally posted by crossover37

I will be shooting raw, always do. Truthfully, I don't use high ISO that often and when I do I don't want to go above ISO 3200. The noise from my Kx would look bad but ya 90% of the time I keep my ISO below 1600. The Kx doesn't feel rugged and professional to me.

How does the image qualty compare? If the ISO is the only difference than that's not a huge problem. I would hope the K7 would be better in most everything else though.

If this is the case, one of your original ideas of the K-7 and DA* lens sounds like it is the best option. I love my K-7 but I shoot at least half of my images in low light or higher than 800 ISO and so I would much rather have the K-5 for this reason. The K-7 definitely feels professional and rugged, and I absolutely love mine. No regrets, just wish I had more money to spend.

Winder · 04-18-2011, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by crossover37

I will be shooting raw, always do. Truthfully, I don't use high ISO that often and when I do I don't want to go above ISO 3200. The noise from my Kx would look bad but ya 90% of the time I keep my ISO below 1600. The Kx doesn't feel rugged and professional to me.

How does the image qualty compare? If the ISO is the only difference than that's not a huge problem. I would hope the K7 would be better in most everything else though.

K-7 is a really solid camera. I have no problems using at at ISO 1600 for some work. Exposure is the key and processing skill.

K-5 is an excellent camera, but go for fast/good glass first. The lens is almost always more important the body when it comes to making great images.

dlacouture · 04-19-2011, 02:28 AM

Well, I went through all of them (K7, Kx for my wife, and K5), and while the K7 has worse high-iso noise than Kx (not a problem with some experience), it has also worse DR (which is rather annoying).
This was my main regret for leaving negatives behind, and it was at last put to rest by the K5 with its huge DR...

So, if the DR is of no use for you, I'd say it all depends on your needs above 75mm... If you badly need the f/2.8 between 75mm and 135mm for DOF reasons, then go for the K7+50-135 combo...

In the other case, then the K5 will just suit you very well... The ISO advantage of the K5 will allow you to use a f/5.6 lens at those FL with similar results (if not better) regarding the noise.

Also, keep in mind that with the K5's extra MPs, you'll be able to crop your 75mm to make up for the FL loss.
You can even get (roughly) a decent 135mm f/5.6 equivalent (at a price, as you'll end up with a 4.5MP image), given the sharpness of the tamron (which I also own).

So, in your shoes, I'd go for the K5... Wait, I already did!

**felixkh** · 04-19-2011, 05:44 AM

I have the K7 and after learning from Adam about tweaking the custom setting, I have no issues with photos at ISO 3200

Frogfish · 04-19-2011, 05:59 AM

Personally I'd stay with the Kx and get the best glass you can ......but as you seem determined to upgrade your camera then I'd skip the K7 and go for the K5.

The K5 isn't just an incremental step up on the K7 .. it's a monstrous leap ahead ! DR, high ISO, AF and so on. I still love my K7 but the K5 is so far ahead that it's a game changer. Your photography will improve because the parameters of what is achievable have been blown away, and of course all your current lenses will benefit too.

DxO results – All Sensors.
Best Sensor Overall : 5th Pentax K5 (ahead of D3, D700, 1Ds Mk III), 9th Nikon D7000 (ahead of Canon 5DII).
Best Landscape Dynamic Range : 1st Pentax K5 (14.1 EVs) 2nd Nikon D7000 (13.7 EVs).
Best Sports (low light) Dynamic Range : 13th Nikon D7000 (ISO 1167) 14th Pentax K5 (ISO 1162)
Best Portrait (colour depth) : 11th Pentax K5 (23.7 bits) 15th Nikon D7000 (23.5 bits).

The Tamron 28-75 is a great lense by the way so I don't see a need to go to the 50-135 unless you really really really need the extra length.

Winder · 04-19-2011, 06:06 AM

There is no question that the sensor in the K-5 is a big leap forward. Sony has done an excellent job. Technology is relative.

The K-7 is more than capable of delivering professional results. There are professional photographers using the Olympus E-3 and the Olympus E-5. Neither of those cameras is as good as the K-7. If you can not get professional results with a K-7 it is not the camera's fault.

DogLover · 04-19-2011, 08:14 AM

Originally posted by Winder

There is no question that the sensor in the K-5 is a big leap forward. Sony has done an excellent job. Technology is relative.

The K-7 is more than capable of delivering professional results. There are professional photographers using the Olympus E-3 and the Olympus E-5. Neither of those cameras is as good as the K-7. If you can not get professional results with a K-7 it is not the camera's fault.

I agree 100%. I've done numerous paid shoots with the K7 and no client has ever been anything less than thrilled with the quality of their images.

axl · 04-20-2011, 03:34 AM

Originally posted by Winder

Are you shooting RAW or JPEG?

The K-7 (RAW) can match the Canon 7D or Nikon D300 up to 3200 if you know what you are doing and shooting RAW. The JPEG engine in the K-7 is not as good as Canon or Nikon.

I can take the K-7 with my Sigma 50mm f/1.4 and Lightroom 3.3 and I have no trouble getting really good results at 1600-2200 range. With a little extra processing I have shot 3200 and still had good 11x14 prints, but there was some extra time and work involved.

Any tips & tricks on how to PP K-7's high ISO images with LR3 and PS3 to achieve optimal reults? Would really appreciate if you could share at leats basic guides...

axl · 04-20-2011, 03:40 AM

To OP.
K-7 + 50-135 gets my vote.
I came to K-7 from K10 and my mrs has K-x.
As said before, the only thing that K-x does better is the high ISO. K-7 beats it in every other respect. And if you usually shoot below 1600 or 2000 then there's nothing to fear with K-7. DA*50-135 has excellent reputation as portrai lens and boosts very good range. Keeping K-x too you could have great setup of K-7+50-135 and K-x+28-75. And that's much better than K-5+28-75 IMO.

Winder · 04-20-2011, 11:00 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by axl

Any tips & tricks on how to PP K-7's high ISO images with LR3 and PS3 to achieve optimal reults? Would really appreciate if you could share at leats basic guides...

There is a good thread on the subject in the "Processing" forum on this site. I think another user has actually done a really good write up on the subject.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/digital-processing-software-printing/1016...anagement.html

crossover37 · 04-21-2011, 10:25 PM

I decided to get the K7 and 50-135mm f2.8. Thanks guys for the help!

outsider · 04-22-2011, 01:59 PM

K-5 Dude. I recently ordered a K-7 and then refused the package, sent it back before it even got passed my door, after reading about it's inability to handle high (relatively low) ISO. Youre k-x will give you cleaner, more grain free shots. Some people aren't bothered by the grain of the K-7, but why not admire the grain because you can instead of being O.K. with it because you have no choice? That's just me. Yes, noise, grain is a reality of photography we must deal with many times, but I like the idea of a sensor being able to control noise and produce as clean of an image as possible. Even at the lowest ISO, the kx is less noisy than the k-7. It's up to you. I figured why not get the k-5, just pay the extra 400 dollars and have a camera I feel I can be happy with for the next 5-7 years in this ridiculously evolving world of photography.

04-19-2011, 02:28 AM	#21
dlacouture Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Var, South of France Photos: Albums Posts: 1,074	Well, I went through all of them (K7, Kx for my wife, and K5), and while the K7 has worse high-iso noise than Kx (not a problem with some experience), it has also worse DR (which is rather annoying). This was my main regret for leaving negatives behind, and it was at last put to rest by the K5 with its huge DR... So, if the DR is of no use for you, I'd say it all depends on your needs above 75mm... If you badly need the f/2.8 between 75mm and 135mm for DOF reasons, then go for the K7+50-135 combo... In the other case, then the K5 will just suit you very well... The ISO advantage of the K5 will allow you to use a f/5.6 lens at those FL with similar results (if not better) regarding the noise. Also, keep in mind that with the K5's extra MPs, you'll be able to crop your 75mm to make up for the FL loss. You can even get (roughly) a decent 135mm f/5.6 equivalent (at a price, as you'll end up with a 4.5MP image), given the sharpness of the tamron (which I also own). So, in your shoes, I'd go for the K5... Wait, I already did! Last edited by dlacouture; 04-19-2011 at 04:13 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Making a decision on the K-5	ruemiser	Pentax DSLR Discussion	4	10-31-2012 04:33 AM
I need Decision help?	Rupert	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	10-09-2010 12:21 PM
Need help on making a decision	oatman911	Pentax Compact Cameras	1	12-28-2009 08:56 AM
K-7 Hard Decision	tsmith	Pentax News and Rumors	24	05-23-2009 01:07 AM
Need help making a decision	paden501	Pentax DSLR Discussion	22	01-29-2008 07:55 PM

04-18-2011, 02:14 PM	#16
crossover37 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 214 Original Poster	I will be shooting raw, always do. Truthfully, I don't use high ISO that often and when I do I don't want to go above ISO 3200. The noise from my Kx would look bad but ya 90% of the time I keep my ISO below 1600. The Kx doesn't feel rugged and professional to me. How does the image qualty compare? If the ISO is the only difference than that's not a huge problem. I would hope the K7 would be better in most everything else though.

04-18-2011, 03:00 PM	#17
DogLover Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 2,054	Originally posted by crossover37 I would hope the K7 would be better in most everything else though. It is, and it definitely feels more professional. My wife has a K2000 (the most unfairly maligned body in recent Pentax history), which is essentially the same body as the Kx and I can assure you that there is a huge difference. She likes that hers is so small and light and in fact I can't get it away from her to sell it (I wanted her to start using my K7, but alas, she did not care what I wanted), but she is not what you would call a serious user. She only wants a camera so that she has something to do while I'm shooting.

04-18-2011, 03:57 PM	#18
InlawBiker Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Seattle, WA Photos: Gallery Posts: 123	I would say - If you're doing real jobs for money and can get away with the K-7 99% of the time then why buy the K-5 when the K-7 will do? Eventually the K-5 will also someday be $700 on the used market while the lens will still be $1000. I don't think it's very hard to find a K-7 with under 6000 clicks for about $700. On the other hand perhaps the extra $700 for a K-5 can be made in only a few jobs, in which case why not just get it now? That's my way of not answering your question

04-18-2011, 05:45 PM	#19
HEEGZ Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Missouri Photos: Albums Posts: 258	Originally posted by crossover37 I will be shooting raw, always do. Truthfully, I don't use high ISO that often and when I do I don't want to go above ISO 3200. The noise from my Kx would look bad but ya 90% of the time I keep my ISO below 1600. The Kx doesn't feel rugged and professional to me. How does the image qualty compare? If the ISO is the only difference than that's not a huge problem. I would hope the K7 would be better in most everything else though. If this is the case, one of your original ideas of the K-7 and DA* lens sounds like it is the best option. I love my K-7 but I shoot at least half of my images in low light or higher than 800 ISO and so I would much rather have the K-5 for this reason. The K-7 definitely feels professional and rugged, and I absolutely love mine. No regrets, just wish I had more money to spend.

04-18-2011, 08:11 PM	#20
Winder Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 6,617	Originally posted by crossover37 I will be shooting raw, always do. Truthfully, I don't use high ISO that often and when I do I don't want to go above ISO 3200. The noise from my Kx would look bad but ya 90% of the time I keep my ISO below 1600. The Kx doesn't feel rugged and professional to me. How does the image qualty compare? If the ISO is the only difference than that's not a huge problem. I would hope the K7 would be better in most everything else though. K-7 is a really solid camera. I have no problems using at at ISO 1600 for some work. Exposure is the key and processing skill. K-5 is an excellent camera, but go for fast/good glass first. The lens is almost always more important the body when it comes to making great images.

04-19-2011, 05:44 AM	#22
felixkh Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Singapore Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,201	I have the K7 and after learning from Adam about tweaking the custom setting, I have no issues with photos at ISO 3200

04-19-2011, 05:59 AM	#23
Frogfish Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Shanghai Posts: 4,490	Personally I'd stay with the Kx and get the best glass you can ......but as you seem determined to upgrade your camera then I'd skip the K7 and go for the K5. The K5 isn't just an incremental step up on the K7 .. it's a monstrous leap ahead ! DR, high ISO, AF and so on. I still love my K7 but the K5 is so far ahead that it's a game changer. Your photography will improve because the parameters of what is achievable have been blown away, and of course all your current lenses will benefit too. DxO results – All Sensors. Best Sensor Overall : 5th Pentax K5 (ahead of D3, D700, 1Ds Mk III), 9th Nikon D7000 (ahead of Canon 5DII). Best Landscape Dynamic Range : 1st Pentax K5 (14.1 EVs) 2nd Nikon D7000 (13.7 EVs). Best Sports (low light) Dynamic Range : 13th Nikon D7000 (ISO 1167) 14th Pentax K5 (ISO 1162) Best Portrait (colour depth) : 11th Pentax K5 (23.7 bits) 15th Nikon D7000 (23.5 bits). The Tamron 28-75 is a great lense by the way so I don't see a need to go to the 50-135 unless you really really really need the extra length.

04-19-2011, 06:06 AM	#24
Winder Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 6,617	There is no question that the sensor in the K-5 is a big leap forward. Sony has done an excellent job. Technology is relative. The K-7 is more than capable of delivering professional results. There are professional photographers using the Olympus E-3 and the Olympus E-5. Neither of those cameras is as good as the K-7. If you can not get professional results with a K-7 it is not the camera's fault.

04-19-2011, 08:14 AM	#25
DogLover Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 2,054	Originally posted by Winder There is no question that the sensor in the K-5 is a big leap forward. Sony has done an excellent job. Technology is relative. The K-7 is more than capable of delivering professional results. There are professional photographers using the Olympus E-3 and the Olympus E-5. Neither of those cameras is as good as the K-7. If you can not get professional results with a K-7 it is not the camera's fault. I agree 100%. I've done numerous paid shoots with the K7 and no client has ever been anything less than thrilled with the quality of their images.

04-20-2011, 03:34 AM	#26
axl Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,183	Originally posted by Winder Are you shooting RAW or JPEG? The K-7 (RAW) can match the Canon 7D or Nikon D300 up to 3200 if you know what you are doing and shooting RAW. The JPEG engine in the K-7 is not as good as Canon or Nikon. I can take the K-7 with my Sigma 50mm f/1.4 and Lightroom 3.3 and I have no trouble getting really good results at 1600-2200 range. With a little extra processing I have shot 3200 and still had good 11x14 prints, but there was some extra time and work involved. Any tips & tricks on how to PP K-7's high ISO images with LR3 and PS3 to achieve optimal reults? Would really appreciate if you could share at leats basic guides...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-20-2011, 03:40 AM	#27
axl Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,183	To OP. K-7 + 50-135 gets my vote. I came to K-7 from K10 and my mrs has K-x. As said before, the only thing that K-x does better is the high ISO. K-7 beats it in every other respect. And if you usually shoot below 1600 or 2000 then there's nothing to fear with K-7. DA*50-135 has excellent reputation as portrai lens and boosts very good range. Keeping K-x too you could have great setup of K-7+50-135 and K-x+28-75. And that's much better than K-5+28-75 IMO.

04-20-2011, 11:00 AM - 1 Like	#28
Winder Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 6,617	Originally posted by axl Any tips & tricks on how to PP K-7's high ISO images with LR3 and PS3 to achieve optimal reults? Would really appreciate if you could share at leats basic guides... There is a good thread on the subject in the "Processing" forum on this site. I think another user has actually done a really good write up on the subject. https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/digital-processing-software-printing/1016...anagement.html

04-21-2011, 10:25 PM	#29
crossover37 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 214 Original Poster	I decided to get the K7 and 50-135mm f2.8. Thanks guys for the help!

04-22-2011, 01:59 PM	#30
outsider Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Photos: Albums Posts: 416	K-5 Dude. I recently ordered a K-7 and then refused the package, sent it back before it even got passed my door, after reading about it's inability to handle high (relatively low) ISO. Youre k-x will give you cleaner, more grain free shots. Some people aren't bothered by the grain of the K-7, but why not admire the grain because you can instead of being O.K. with it because you have no choice? That's just me. Yes, noise, grain is a reality of photography we must deal with many times, but I like the idea of a sensor being able to control noise and produce as clean of an image as possible. Even at the lowest ISO, the kx is less noisy than the k-7. It's up to you. I figured why not get the k-5, just pay the extra 400 dollars and have a camera I feel I can be happy with for the next 5-7 years in this ridiculously evolving world of photography.