[johnmflores]

K-r plus a prime like the 35/2.4 or 40/2.8 or 21/3.2

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

K-r would actually be a step down from the K10D. Yes, the sensor is better at high ISO, but the body is inferior - you lose more than you gain.

[kenafein]

The buffer, fps, micro adjustment, weight, software, metering, etc are all better on the kr.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

The buffer, fps, micro adjustment, weight, software, metering, etc are all better on the kr.

Details of little importance. Controls, viewfinder, and build are the things you'll notice every time you'll use the camera and they're all inferior on the entry level bodies. And I'm not sure why you even mentioned weight - a lighter plastic body isn't a plus.

[kenafein]

I have a K-r and a K20D. The K-r makes superior images, and it keeps up with my daughter no problem. I can make shots with the K-r that I would never attempt with the K20D. Aside from low light, i can slap my DA21 on the K-r and take shots without the viewfinder at various angles that would be dificult with the heavier camera. The live view really helps with low depth of field focus. The K-r is also really solid, it maybe plastic, so is the K20D, and not weather sealed but it is very sturdy (has a steel frame). I do enjoy the pro features, but the K-r is also a great camera and is superior to the K10D through K-7 in many ways.

[johnmflores]

I have a K-r and a K20D. The K-r makes superior images, and it keeps up with my daughter no problem. I can make shots with the K-r that I would never attempt with the K20D. Aside from low light, i can slap my DA21 on the K-r and take shots without the viewfinder at various angles that would be different with the heavier camera. The live view really helps with low depth of field focus. The K-r is also really solid, it maybe plastic, so is the K20D, and not weather sealed but it is very sturdy (has a steel frame). I do enjoy the pro features, but the K-r is also a great camera and is superior to the K10D through K-7 in many ways.

The superior image thing is the kicker for me. And while I like dual dials, I've managed well enough with one dial on the K-x and my Panny GH2.

[kenafein]

Also, you can change almost everything, quickly, off the info menu. It is not like my k100d, where I had to go menu diving to change the settings. Dedicated buttons are great, but the kr UI is efficient.

[johnmflores]

Here you go, with some $$$ left over for a nice tripod, or another lens...

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/photographic-equipment-sale/164804-sale-t...ml#post1705955

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

The K-r makes superior images, and it keeps up with my daughter no problem. I can make shots with the K-r that I would never attempt with the K20D.

Of course, if you don't even attempt to use your K20D in those conditions, the results you will get when you do attempt to use your K-r will feel superior to nothing at all. I've been in your shoes too - I upgraded from K10D, to K-7, and then K-x - except I still use my K10D and for available light portraiture I rely on the K-7 - the K-x is very useful with mirror lenses where I want to use high ISO even in daylight, but that's the only application where I find its high ISO performance really useful. For available light, the drawbacks around handling, controls, shutter/mirror operation, and viewfinder are nullifying any benefit I would get from the higher ISO performance. And for any low ISO work (up to and including ISO 800), which is most of what I do, any camera works just great and I get more kick out of the specific lenses that I use. My take out of all my experience is that people worry needlessly about noise - noise will only ruin shots that were poor to begin with

[theunartist]

Looking for some advise. I currently have a K10D, with kit lens and Pentax 18-250 zoom lens. I have about $1,000 to spend. Should I upgrade my camera or buy higher quality lens's?

Your $1000 will be entirely spent on a new or even used K5 if you go down this road. That will still leave you with just "average" lenses. The K5 will not turn a "soft" lens into a razor sharp instrument...

I love the K10D and the out of camera image the sensor produces! If you have a fully and properly functioning K10, I would obtain lenses. Better, sharper and faster lenses will produce immediate and hopefully better results in your photos.

"Follow the glass..."

[Jorge]

With all respect to the rest of opinions, I am almost in your same position with respect to the camera body (I own some of the primes, however), and I will definitely go for the lenses. I bought a year ago the K5, which was returned because of the stains issue. I was happy with the camera, but the PF with the limiteds was clearly noticeable and it was obsessing me. At some point I thought: "what all this pixel peeping, PF paranoia and whatever has to do with photography?". The answer was clear: nothing.

When I read that the K5 is more capable, I always think, capable of what? What I want to do is growing as a photographer with a reliable camera, and that is something that the K10D certainly is. It has its limitations, but learning the technique to work with ISO 400 or 800 as max and fast primes is part of its charm. I do not need huge 16mpx PEFs or DNGs either, what I certainly need is a camera that really shines with the limiteds, and the K10D does. If I were you I will try to buy the better affordable lenses —you live in the US, you can surely find bargains— and I will try a different approach to the camera you already own. The K10D with the 43mm (400$ second hand) is really a new and different camera, and a completely new world for you as a photographer. Explore it and wait for the next Pentax body —it should come at some point— if you still think that it is what you need. If you regret, well, in six months you will find a K-5 for 500-600$.

My two cents and accept my apologies for my poor English.

[TER-OR]

I recently made the jump from K10 to K5, back in the spring. This summer I upgraded from the Tamron 70-300 to the Pentax DA 55-300 because the purple fringing was worse with the K5...and was ruining otherwise outstanding images. That said, the 55-300 focuses really quickly and works very well on the K10.

I kept the K10, partially because I like having a backup, partly because I have a split-screen in the K10 and partly because I keep trying to get my wife back into the hobby and we can use two different lenses when we're out.

The K5 does bring a lot to the game. A whole lot, really - but autofocus and ISO are the big draws. If those aren't as important then hold out, get some good glass and make the best pictures with the K10. Ask what kind of pictures you can't get with the superzoom and get that lens.

Now there are two lenses I'd really like - the DA35mm macro (or maybe an older film era version) and the 18-135mm WR for the weather resistance and I think it would suit my wife's requirements more. I kind of enjoy the limitations of a prime forcing creative framing, but frequently have a zoom mounted for convenience.

[DaveHolmes]

The K10D with the 43mm (400$ second hand) is really a new and different camera, and a completely new world for you as a photographer.

BOOM! (and first rep added)

I absolubtly agree! The improvement you'd gain in IQ from a pentax Ltd prime (or 2!!) coming from an 18-250 zoom would outstrip the improvements gained from a camera upgrade IMO...
$1000 should get you a couple of DA-Ltd's... Go through your images and see what focal-lengths you shoot at, this will give clues as to which primes to go for...

[sterretje]

The real question is what are you shooting. If you're shooting things around the house, a flash and a 2.8 lens go a long way in low light. Yes the high iso of the k-5 helps, but there's more uses for a flash and fast glass than low light shooting.

I have been thinking long and hard how to phrase it in a few sentences but you nailed it. Exactly my feeling. I would add that dougfrey should have a look at https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/64295-pentax-high-...post-here.html (a thread started in 2009) showing what can be achieved with camera's that are not known to be high ISO monsters.

[Frogfish]

but after a day walking around with a 70-300 that can also do 1:1 macro I have decided that what I really need is to take advantage of the glass I have.

Also I'm secretly holding out for the K-5's successor because if I bought the K-5 now, they would announce the successor probably hours later.

1) A 70-300 offering 1:1 macro ? I think you are referring to the Tamron 70-300 which is a wonderful lens for the money but *only* offers 1:2 macro (and this is still fantastic).

2) If you wait for the K5s successor then it'll be nearer US$2,000 than the under US$1,000 the K5 is now at. That logic doesn't make any sense to me but enough people say it that I now realise I must be missing something in my logic processor.

I just love the K5 but have to agree with others that a couple of much better lenses would do more for you.

You like zooms so far so consider the Tamron 17-50/2.8 and Pentax 55-300 or alternatively (and better still) the 35/2.4 and 50-135/2.8 - which will be just US$20 over the budget (sell the 50-200 and you'll be under budget) and keep the 18-55 regardless for the WR and for the 18-35 range, as it is an excellent kit lens and when it rains you'll have 18 - 135mm covered with WR lenses.