Originally posted by crossover37 I bought the K7 and I had a Kx (still have it) and I loved everything about the K7 except for the high iso. I took test shots with the Kx and K7 and felt the Kx had about a stop and a half to 2 stops of better ISO performance using Raw (which is what I shoot in always).* After bringing the camera to my parents’ house to take pictures of the nephews and nieces, I realized the image quality when using High ISO was bad and a lot of detail is lost because of the noise.* I even used ISO 560 and noticed grain which was almost invisible with the Kx. I can't keep the K7, the image quality degrades so much when I bump up the ISO.* It sucks because I loved the K7 so much.
So here's my dilemma now. Is the K5 worth the upgrade from the Kx since the ISO performance is similar? (according to what i saw on DPReview). If all I will be gaining is external controls, a couple more features, and more MP, is it worth getting the K5 instead of buying 2 nice lenses?* I had a previous thread about whether to get the K7 and 50-135mm f2.8 but now my question is should I buy the K5 or get two great lenses for my Kx. I bought a Sigma 50-150 f2.8 and I was thinking of buying another lens if I keep the Kx (my current lenses are the Kit Lens 18-55mm, FA 50mm f1.4 and Tamron 28-75mm f2.8). Will the K5 make my images look that much better with my current lenses compared to the Kx? I shoot portraits mostly.
My concerns are clients will think my camera is not "professional" enough if I keep the Kx.* Some people I photograph have more expensive cameras than I do and I know that's not the issue but in their eyes it might be (even though I have better lenses and more gear, and know how to use it). The final results are what matters but I’m wondering if people will think “hey, you’re charging money for portraits and you’re using a entry-level camera). It's tough decision.
So what do you all think? Get the K5 (I found one for $1339 at Amazon, body only) with my current lens line up, or keep the Kx and keep my Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 and the 43mm f1.9? (I would sell my 50mm f1.4) I got the Sigma for $660 so I'm trying to keep my total spending to no more than $1350.
What size are you printing? What are you using for RAW processing?
While I agree the K-x is 1-stop better than the K-7 I have never had any issue with ISO800 when properly exposed and processed.
Show us some images with EXIF data intact. I would be interested to see whats going on.
I would recommend you buy better glass. By the time people see your gear you already have the job and if your pictures are good then they will have forgotten about the gear you used. If you are worried about gear perception then I recommend Canon or Nikon. As a long time Canon shooter I can tell you that the grass is always greener, and nobody really cares what gear you use. If some one says something about you camera tell them that you you normally don't use your Leica S2 for simple portrait work, but when you do you charge significantly more.
There are several very successful professional photographers using cameras that are not as capable in low light as the K-7.
Jay Dickman Photographer
Jay was using the Olympus E-3 for his National Geographic work a while back. I'm not sure if he has "upgraded" to a E-5 or not, but neither of those 4/3 sensors are as good as the lowly K-7.
The K-7 is definitely not the ideal camera for all types of photography, but there are a lot of people doing a lot of really good work with a lot less.
The ultimate question is can you justify the cost from a cash flow stand point. How much more money will you make with a K-5? How many more jobs will you land because you have a K-5?
Post some K-7 images and let's see what the issue is.