[gp1806]

I just made this decision and went with the K-5. I know that with the Nikon, I would have had better AF in the dark, plus smaller points. Not to mention, Nikon actually has fast wide-angle lenses, which Pentax lacks.

What the Pentax has over the Nikon: cleaner high ISO output, particularly above ISO6400 (I shoot concerts at 10,000). Pixel Mapping, dust reduction, slightly sharper output, smaller body.

You forgot in-camera image stabilization. The Nikon uses in-lens stabilization. Are the Nikon fast wide angle lenses stabilized?

[Tanzer]

And asking this on Nikon centric website would be different how?

You can't trust the advice you get from a Nikon-centric website.

[pakinjapan]

Which would you buy now (new): Pentax K5 or Nikon D7000 ?

And why?

I ask my self the same question before I go with K5.
I like features on D7000 a lot, but it doesn't feel right no my hand, many button seem to be in the wrong place for me.
I don't have much problem with both camera's performance. They both are good.

[Class A]

The K-5 has the big advantage of pixel mapping (you can fix any hot pixels yourself) and arguably has the better ergonomics and built quality.

If AF performance is not important for you the K-5 is a no brainer. If not, consider the K-5 II and have a good look at the D7000 again. To the best of my knowledge the D7000's AF is quite a bit better for action photography than the K-5's.

In body image stabilisation and access to cheap old manual focus lenses on the used market are further plus points for the K-5.

The only additional plus points I can think of for the D7000 (it probably has more) are the dual card slots and the ability to used it tethered in combination with Lightroom.

P.S.: Have a look at the Snapsort comparison between the K-5 and D7000. The K-5 wins here, but you need to prioritise what is important to you and make a decision according to that. N.B. interesting the the K-5's shutter lag is half of that of the D7000. That's quite an advantage, AFAIC.

[snake]

You forgot in-camera image stabilization. The Nikon uses in-lens stabilization. Are the Nikon fast wide angle lenses stabilized?

Thought about it, forgot to write it. Will edit the post, but that is a big plus, certainly.

[snake]

Plus lower cost and WR.

The Nikon has a WR body, too.

The weathersealed body thing is always something that fascinates me. When I was on the Olympus realm, they lied and pretended that the E-X series were the ONLY weathersealed dSLR cameras made. Now that I'm in the Pentax realm, people here lie and pretend that no other company makes weathersealed cameras. I have noticed that they are way more aggressive in how they treat their E-5s, however.

There are full diagrams of the sealing of the D7000 available.

Nikon | Imaging Products | Nikon D7000
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ujx8etQCmLI

The thing is, I"m not a Pentax fanboy. If Nikon makes something tomorrow that compels me to leave Pentax (and I have the money to do it, along with reason), I will. I am not brand loyal, nor do I look at these product corporations as a "team" that I must advertise, root for, and lie for.

In my case, I know the drawbacks of both, I know the advantages of both. I didn't go Pentax because I wanted to join a team. I simply wanted something that worked and was willing, after testing, to deal with the AF issues to gain maintenance conveniences, along with IBIS and slightly cleaner output. I also gave up the access to fast wideangle lenses to go with Pentax.

Thus far, I don't think I made a mistake and since I'm doing semi-professional concert shooting now with others, who are pros and typically using 5DII/III and 7D cams, I think I'm doing quite well and I"m fairly competitive with their output for the same events (check blog).

[elliott]

The Nikon has a WR body, too.

What is the cheapest lens from Nikon with WR, anything close to the 18-55mm WR for under $200? I tried looking, but it isn't exactly a feature they draw attention to. I have heard that their lenses that have the rubber seal around the mount may not be fully sealed, they will keep water out of the body, but not the lens.

[snake]

What is the cheapest lens from Nikon with WR, anything close to the 18-55mm WR for under $200? I tried looking, but it isn't exactly a feature they draw attention to. I have heard that their lenses that have the rubber seal around the mount may not be fully sealed, they will keep water out of the body, but not the lens.

Common argument and a strawman.

Why would I want to use a lower grade kit lens? Your argument doesn't work for me because I would like to use the highest quality lenses I can and invest in them. I'm actually getting PAID for my work now, so what reason would I have to risk that, to risk my mentor's reputation (who is a very well-known concert photographer), to use a kit lens to satisfy an internet forum argument where it's not about photography and it's everything about spec sheets?

Most arguments on this forum will tell people immediately to get rid of the kit lens, but here, since it fits this precise argument, the cheap kit lens is now valid again?

You're right; Nikon doesn't draw attention to it like Olympus has done for over a decade, like Pentax only started really whoring out in the last few years. It doesn't mean that one should lie for the sake of winning an e-argument on consumer products. This is what I hate about brand-based forums for any kind of product group. People stop being rational, they start lying about the competitors, and the arguments pull out strawmen.

I'm sure that 18-55 was being bashed in other places, but in this context, it's an advantage? It barely exposes how good the K-5 sensor really is. In some cases, even the older FA lenses are a step behind how good the sensor is, but now the kit lens is good enough?

Regardless, that is what makes the two cameras similar. I chose Pentax, but I could have easily chosen Canon, Nikon, or any mirrorless offerings if they fit what I was looking for. In that light, the Sony Nex 5n/6 are very enticing, especially with the Zeiss lenses.

[Docrwm]

The Nikon has a WR body, too.

The weathersealed body thing is always something that fascinates me. When I was on the Olympus realm, they lied and pretended that the E-X series were the ONLY weathersealed dSLR cameras made. Now that I'm in the Pentax realm, people here lie and pretend that no other company makes weathersealed cameras. I have noticed that they are way more aggressive in how they treat their E-5s, however.

There are full diagrams of the sealing of the D7000 available.

Nikon | Imaging Products | Nikon D7000
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ujx8etQCmLI

The thing is, I"m not a Pentax fanboy. If Nikon makes something tomorrow that compels me to leave Pentax (and I have the money to do it, along with reason), I will. I am not brand loyal, nor do I look at these product corporations as a "team" that I must advertise, root for, and lie for.

In my case, I know the drawbacks of both, I know the advantages of both. I didn't go Pentax because I wanted to join a team. I simply wanted something that worked and was willing, after testing, to deal with the AF issues to gain maintenance conveniences, along with IBIS and slightly cleaner output. I also gave up the access to fast wideangle lenses to go with Pentax.

Thus far, I don't think I made a mistake and since I'm doing semi-professional concert shooting now with others, who are pros and typically using 5DII/III and 7D cams, I think I'm doing quite well and I"m fairly competitive with their output for the same events (check blog).

Please don't imply fanboy when quoting me. I've gotten in trouble here for criticizing Pentax and its personnel and policies.

That said, I could not find a single statement on either of two retailers sites that the D7000 is officially weather sealed. To be completely honest, I was looking because I was/am considering going over to Nikon because I am fed up with the poor AF performance of the K-5. However, without WR in a non Pro body I had eliminated that option...for now. I'll go and have another look at the D7000 to see if it has WR as you claim.

[elliott]

Common argument and a strawman.

Why would I want to use a lower grade kit lens? Your argument doesn't work for me because I would like to use the highest quality lenses I can and invest in them. I'm actually getting PAID for my work now, so what reason would I have to risk that, to risk my mentor's reputation (who is a very well-known concert photographer), to use a kit lens to satisfy an internet forum argument where it's not about photography and it's everything about spec sheets?

I just meant saying the D7000 is also weather sealed doesn't mean much if you have to spend another $800 or more for it to actually be weather sealed, since the cheapest I could find is the 18-200mm. The K-5 with the kit lens is weather sealed right out of the box. The kit lens could be useful even if you have higher quality glass, for example you Tamron 17-50mm f2.8, it is quite good, but not sealed. So if it is raining you can take the 18-55mm WR instead of risking your more expensive Tamron or not getting a shot at all.

Not everyone buying these bodies are professional, a vast majority aren't getting paid for their photos, but weather sealing might still matter to them. The kit lens isn't necessarily bad, you can get great results out of it if you are able to work within the limitations and I'm willing to bet a good pro photographer could sell plenty of shots taken with one.

[westmill]

For me that would be a tough question. Once you know and understand the focus system on the K5 its actualy not that bad. The only reason I would consider the nikon at all would be because of the poor flash operation of the pentax. The K5 2 may be sorted in that area too though. All said and done I think I would still prefer the K5 to a D7000. If anything i personly would buy another D300 but thats just me. I would not even do that until I was fully aware of the new K5 2. Its very feasable that all problems and bugs have been put right. If that turns out to the case then yet again, my opinion, would be the K5 2 would be the best APSC camera money can buy.

[snake]

I just meant saying the D7000 is also weather sealed doesn't mean much if you have to spend another $800 or more for it to actually be weather sealed, since the cheapest I could find is the 18-200mm. The K-5 with the kit lens is weather sealed right out of the box. The kit lens could be useful even if you have higher quality glass, for example you Tamron 17-50mm f2.8, it is quite good, but not sealed. So if it is raining you can take the 18-55mm WR instead of risking your more expensive Tamron or not getting a shot at all.

Not everyone buying these bodies are professional, a vast majority aren't getting paid for their photos, but weather sealing might still matter to them. The kit lens isn't necessarily bad, you can get great results out of it if you are able to work within the limitations and I'm willing to bet a good pro photographer could sell plenty of shots taken with one.

Pentax advertises the K-30 as water-resistant, yet sells it with the non-WR version of the kit zoom.

And?

Not to mention, people like me bought the K-5 as a body only, which I'm sure compromises the WR factor.

It's still a straw man. Why one would get a K-5 only to use with a kit lens that barely reveals how good the sensor is, is beyond me. This is an argument I'd see on the Samsung forum at DPR, where they argue about how they have the best kit lenses in the business.

Yet they are kit lenses.

[elliott]

Pentax advertises the K-30 as water-resistant, yet sells it with the non-WR version of the kit zoom.

It is also sold with the 18-135mm WR as a kit. I think it was an annoying marketing decision to push the 18-135mm since I can't find it bundled with the 18-55mm WR.

Why one would get a K-5 only to use with a kit lens that barely reveals how good the sensor is, is beyond me.

If you can't use your wonderful sensor when it is raining because you don't have a WR lens, but would really like to get the shot, it isn't very much good is it? I'd rather have a "bad" kit lens shot than none at all. No one says just because you have it you have to use it all the time, you can have a full selection of "fair weather" glass that is measurably better, but if you need a shot when there is a chance of getting wet, you might not want to use it. Not everyone has the $1000 to drop on the DA* 16-50mm right after buying a $1000 camera, the 18-55mm WR is not a bad deal for less than $100 more than a body only K-5.

[snake]

It is also sold with the 18-135mm WR as a kit. I think it was an annoying marketing decision to push the 18-135mm since I can't find it bundled with the 18-55mm WR.


If you can't use your wonderful sensor when it is raining because you don't have a WR lens, but would really like to get the shot, it isn't very much good is it? I'd rather have a "bad" kit lens shot than none at all. No one says just because you have it you have to use it all the time, you can have a full selection of "fair weather" glass that is measurably better, but if you need a shot when there is a chance of getting wet, you might not want to use it. Not everyone has the $1000 to drop on the DA* 16-50mm right after buying a $1000 camera, the 18-55mm WR is not a bad deal for less than $100 more than a body only K-5.

The two bodies are weather resistant. Period. They both need lenses that are weather resistant also. When used with said weather resistant lenses, there is weather resistance to the package.

Costs do not negate the D7000's weather resistance.

Walking into a fanboy argument here should have been expected, I guess.

[Docrwm]

The two bodies are weather resistant. Period. They both need lenses that are weather resistant also. When used with said weather resistant lenses, there is weather resistance to the package.

Costs do not negate the D7000's weather resistance.

Walking into a fanboy argument here should have been expected, I guess.

Sad. You really only have one tune don't you. I'm a pro and everyone should rise to my standards. Sorry, that's Nikonspeak. Here we appreciate that people that don't spend $1000 for a lens can still take great photos, be good people, and not be dolts as you keep implying. Ignored henceforth.