[Wingincamera]

I am on the fence between a K-30 and K-5 II. The K-30 has 12 bit raw files, while the K-5 II has 14 bit raw files. Does anyone know if there is any noticeable differences in the final images?

If I purchase the K-5 it will be kit form with the 18-135 lens, plus one wider lens. If the K-30 it would be with similar range DA* lens, or similar quality lens. I shoot mostly landscape.

[Adam]

14 bit basically means that you'll have 4x as many possible colors per channel vs 12 bit, which works out to be quite a few more colors overall

There will be a discernible difference in the shadows and highlights in 14-bit files compared to 12-bit files, but if you're mostly a JPEG shooter, you can put things into perspective by considering that JPEGs only have 8-bit color depth.

If you do the math, 14 bit files can represent 4.4 x 10^12 colors, 12 bit files can represent 6.9 x 10 ^ 10 (69 billion), and 8-bit files can represent only 1.6 x 10 ^ 7 (16 million).

[DSims]

This may not directly answer your question about 12 vs. 14 bit, but I'd go with the better lens(es).

I did end up "upgrading" from my K-x to the K-5 when it came out, but only after I'd acquired a substantial quality lens kit. I think I was one of the few forum members who was somewhat disappointed with his K-5 purchase. My IQ hardly changed, because it was all coming from the good lenses I already had. I finally came to appreciate the K-5 over time, but I'm not sure I ever completely recovered from the bad feeling that I'd thrown so much money into depreciation of a camera body (I bought it for launch price, less a ~$100-150 discount that I found through ProVantage).

The K-30 is so close to the K-5 and K-5 II that I don't think you'll get the value out of the body upgrade. OTOH, something like a DA15, FA*24, A24/2.8, DA*16-50, DA*50-135, or maybe even a wide Samyang lens should give you a good ROI in IQ. In fact, a K-30 with a DA15, F (or A) 24-50/4, and a DA*50-135 would be an excellent kit (all of which are lenses I still have).


That said, I received my K-5 IIs today, and it looks good so far - i.e. I think I may be happy with it, even paying the current price. It seems to hold a number of advantages over my K-5 - beyond what I've heard other people mention so far. We'll see as I'll get a good chance to use it Thursday. But if you do go with the K-5 II, at get the IIs. The lack of an AA filter should only help for landscape, with virtually no downside.


Even if you plan to get a K-5 II/s someday, don't bother until you've got the lenses. The K-30 will depreciate less than the K-5s, so you'll be ahead when upgrade time comes, and you will have made nice photos with great lenses in the meantime.

[Na Horuk]

I would also say it is important what you shoot. For something like landscapes or macro details, the K-5 might be better. But the difference, even though it is mathematically big, will not be noticed if you are a casual photographer or a hobby photographer (and if you have a casual audience). You will only notice it if you are really pulling the most out of your camera, and I mean massive post processing and big prints with pro printers. I heard most computer monitors don't even have the capability to show all those bits of colour. The main difference comes from dynamic range - for example, if a photo is too dark and you shot raw, the K-5 will save more data and will be able to "bring back" more colours from the darks (or the highlights). If you expose properly and aren't dealing in terrible light conditions, the extra bits will not be important.
At least, that is what I learned from reading on this type of stuff. I would suggest you get the K-30 for most uses, or the K-5 if you have a specific use and you know the alternative won't cut it.

[SRT201]

This may not directly answer your question about 12 vs. 14 bit, but I'd go with the better lens(es).

I did end up "upgrading" from my K-x to the K-5 when it came out, but only after I'd acquired a substantial quality lens kit. I think I was one of the few forum members who was somewhat disappointed with his K-5 purchase. My IQ hardly changed, because it was all coming from the good lenses I already had. I finally came to appreciate the K-5 over time, but I'm not sure I ever completely recovered from the bad feeling that I'd thrown so much money into depreciation of a camera body (I bought it for launch price, less a ~$100-150 discount that I found through ProVantage).

Not the only one... like you I was certainly disappointed when the improvement in IQ I was hoping for, over my Kx, did not materialize. To be fair, the Kx has AMAZING IQ for a 12MP body and it is well known that the Kx has little or no AA filter. I find that there is almost no advantage in detail with the K-5 over the Kx. Now there are many other things I like better but the Kx remains a great second camera (even with that clacking shutter sound)

[boriscleto]

This may not directly answer your question about 12 vs. 14 bit, but I'd go with the better lens(es).

I did end up "upgrading" from my K-x to the K-5 when it came out, but only after I'd acquired a substantial quality lens kit. I think I was one of the few forum members who was somewhat disappointed with his K-5 purchase. My IQ hardly changed, because it was all coming from the good lenses I already had. I finally came to appreciate the K-5 over time, but I'm not sure I ever completely recovered from the bad feeling that I'd thrown so much money into depreciation of a camera body (I bought it for launch price, less a ~$100-150 discount that I found through ProVantage).

The K-30 is so close to the K-5 and K-5 II that I don't think you'll get the value out of the body upgrade. OTOH, something like a DA15, FA*24, A24/2.8, DA*16-50, DA*50-135, or maybe even a wide Samyang lens should give you a good ROI in IQ. In fact, a K-30 with a DA15, F (or A) 24-50/4, and a DA*50-135 would be an excellent kit (all of which are lenses I still have).


That said, I received my K-5 IIs today, and it looks good so far - i.e. I think I may be happy with it, even paying the current price. It seems to hold a number of advantages over my K-5 - beyond what I've heard other people mention so far. We'll see as I'll get a good chance to use it Thursday. But if you do go with the K-5 II, at get the IIs. The lack of an AA filter should only help for landscape, with virtually no downside.


Even if you plan to get a K-5 II/s someday, don't bother until you've got the lenses. The K-30 will depreciate less than the K-5s, so you'll be ahead when upgrade time comes, and you will have made nice photos with great lenses in the meantime.

Not the only one... like you I was certainly disappointed when the improvement in IQ I was hoping for, over my Kx, did not materialize. To be fair, the Kx has AMAZING IQ for a 12MP body and it is well known that the Kx has little or no AA filter. I find that there is almost no advantage in detail with the K-5 over the Kx. Now there are many other things I like better but the Kx remains a great second camera (even with that clacking shutter sound)

I have to disagree with both of you. The K-5 was an amazing upgrade from the K-x, if you shoot RAW. With its greater dynamic range you can pull things out of pictures in a K-5, with the adjustment of a few sliders in Aperture, that the K-x just can't. The K-x was a nice low-end camera in its time, but it doesn't come close to the K-5. The K-30, sharing a sensor with the K-5, is probably much closer.

I also disagree about lenses. I don't own any high-end lenses, the best lens I own is the FA 50/1.7, but I still get great pictures from the K-5. The lens I use the most is the DA L 55-300.

[SRT201]

I have to disagree with both of you. The K-5 was an amazing upgrade from the K-x, if you shoot RAW. With its greater dynamic range you can pull things out of pictures in a K-5, with the adjustment of a few sliders in Aperture, that the K-x just can't. The K-x was a nice low-end camera in its time, but it doesn't come close to the K-5. The K-30, sharing a sensor with the K-5, is probably much closer.

After owning both for a while and virtually always shooting RAW, I will have to disagree. The Kx was a "low-end" camera only in terms of price. In performance it was among the best available especially in terms of DR. Having the highest dynamic range at that point of 12.5 stops it actually comes close to the K-5 with it's 14.1 stops. While that appears to be more than a stop of extra DR for the K-5 in most situations it's hard to realize the difference in real-world photographic environments. Just like the K-5, you can pull amazing detail from the shadows in Kx shots without the horrible noise that would accompany it on many other cameras. It's certainly not night and day as it would be when comparing the K-5 to a camera with 10 stops of DR for instance. That was the first thing that struck me as a new Kx user. My previous Olympus bodies lost a lot of detail in shadow. If it looked gone, it was basically gone. On the Kx however I could recover amazing shadow detail.

Also take into account that the DxOMark figures are one lab's measurements of individual camera bodies. Some estimates put the two even closer in terms of DR.

The K-5 is a great camera and certainly outperforms the Kx in a number of ways but the Kx was so good and had such a weak AA filter than when it comes to detail and DR it's not a stunning difference - IMO.

---

Last edited by SRT201; 10-31-2012 at 08:13 AM.

[SRT201]

I am on the fence between a K-30 and K-5 II. The K-30 has 12 bit raw files, while the K-5 II has 14 bit raw files. Does anyone know if there is any noticeable differences in the final images?

If I purchase the K-5 it will be kit form with the 18-135 lens, plus one wider lens. If the K-30 it would be with similar range DA* lens, or similar quality lens. I shoot mostly landscape.

There will be very little if any discernible difference between 12 and 14 bit RAW unless you do quite a bit of tone curve manipulation in RAW developing software like LR or DxO. If you shoot jpegs, get the K-30. If you shoot RAW or would like to move in that direction (spending a lot more time in post) then you would be wise to consider the K-5II.

[Lowell Goudge]

To be clear the additional 2 bits of data really only come into the picture if you are radically changing the exposure and stretching out. Tiny segment of dynamic range. There the two bits can help prevent banding. Otherwise I'm not sure that the noise control is rally good down in these last 2 bits

[RonHendriks1966]

I think that the K-5 is the best with iso80-250 where there is more in the 14-bit RAW then with the 12-bit K-30 (I have K-01). I think that with good balanced light with iso400-1600 there is little difference. But when in this range there is highlight blowing or darks then the K-5 gives you more to recover. The K-5 is winning from iso1600 and up.

When you van make it K-30 with DA*50-135mm and Da21mm Ltd then you have a very nice set that will win over K-5/18-135mm.

[normhead]

To be clear the additional 2 bits of data really only come into the picture if you are radically changing the exposure and stretching out. Tiny segment of dynamic range. There the two bits can help prevent banding. Otherwise I'm not sure that the noise control is rally good down in these last 2 bits

Compared to shooting my K20D, there's a huge difference in noise control, especially in the shadows, and it's not just a matter of preventing banding, it's also how natural the colours look.

When you van make it K-30 with DA*50-135mm and Da21mm Ltd then you have a very nice set that will win over K-5/18-135mm.

As for lenses... The 18-135 is very strong from about 20 to 40 mm. I find it to be an excellent landscape lens used in it's wide end. The DA* is very strong throughout it's range. But, you're talking $500 vs $1500...if I'm you, the lens I'd add to the 18-135 would be the 15 Ltd.


18-135 images.





And its centre sharp in it's long end, soft only on the borders, not that you can really tell often...



The 21 is no slouch



But why not take your prime down into the area beyond the reach of your zoom? Especially with the 18-135 being so strong in the wide end.

[DSims]

FWIW, DPReview just posted their full review of the K-30 a couple of days ago. You can compare the K-30's IQ to the K-5 (which is supposed to be the same IQ-wise as the K-5 II, although I can assure you there will be small differences). Just Posted: Pentax K-30 full review: Digital Photography Review

You can judge for yourself, but I can see it has an advantage in noise at high ISO over the K-5 and any previous Pentax body - both in RAW and JPG. It certainly is the better value, unless you need a specific feature of the K-5 II. My guess is the K-5 II won't beat it, but the K-5 IIs will by a small margin.

[SRT201]

Compared to shooting my K20D, there's a huge difference in noise control, especially in the shadows, and it's not just a matter of preventing banding, it's also how natural the colours look.

I imagine so, but in that case you're talking about two different things. As I understand it, the K20D has considerably higher noise than more recent bodies like the Kx, Kr, K30 or K-5. It's hard to compare the isolated the effect of the extra resolution when noise is having considerably greater impact on the images in one camera body vs. the other. Colors will look more natural with lower noise.

Nice shots!

[normhead]

You can judge for yourself, but I can see it has an advantage in noise at high ISO over the K-5 and any previous Pentax body - both in RAW and JPG. It certainly is the better value, unless you need a specific feature of the K-5 II. My guess is the K-5 II won't beat it, but the K-5 IIs will by a small margin.

Every feature built in to the K-30 has been built in to the K-5 II. Given that the K-5 II is 14 bit and the K30 isn't I'm not sure how the K-30 would compete with it. Unless you shoot jpeg. At risk of repeating myself. There are times when 14 bit saves your bacon. The K30 probably competes with the K-5 quite well. SO does my K20D, until you get to the shot where it doesn't. Then you get a dynamic picture from the K-5 and nothing useable from the K20D. I'm not sure why it would be any different with the K-30.

[RonHendriks1966]

Every feature built in to the K-30 has been built in to the K-5 II. Given that the K-5 II is 14 bit and the K30 isn't I'm not sure how the K-30 would compete with it. Unless you shoot jpeg. At risk of repeating myself. There are times when 14 bit saves your bacon. The K30 probably competes with the K-5 quite well. SO does my K20D, until you get to the shot where it doesn't. Then you get a dynamic picture from the K-5 and nothing useable from the K20D. I'm not sure why it would be any different with the K-30.

Well K20D is from a different generation and no competition for the K-30 I think.

DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side