[Rondec]

The K5 II is a great camera. I think as a photographic tool it was hard to improve on and I can see photographers being satisfied with its performance for years. It took the best parts of the K5 and fixed the parts that weren't so great.

The K3 is a little faster with regard to operation, but doesn't have the same amazing dynamic range at low iso that the K5 IIs has.

At this point, sensor improvements seem to have slowed somewhat and it isn't like there is no tech coming out every week. Still, nothing in the digital era will stand the test of time the way a camera like the LX did from the film era.

[Dr Orloff]

I have a K5 and if anything goes wrong with it then it will be replaced with a K5IIs.

[janzenart]

Just sold my K3 and have a K5iis on the way to replace it. Had the K7 before the K3 and loved the layout of it, then got the K3 and loved the output but hated the handling. So i figured the K5iis will get me the handling i love with close to K3 image quality.

[kadajawi]

I still think that the K5II is the most well-built camera for photographers. There are no unnecessary gimicks. It just stays out of the way and shoots really well. I'm waiting for prices to drop further and I'm getting a second one. I don't like the way Pentax is going with their newer models.

It's not just Pentax but Nikon is even worse. After they announced the D750 I bought a second D700 the week after. Nikon completely lost the plot. They dumbed down their cameras to avoid competing with their higher models.

I'm at the other end. I want lots of features, as long as they don't get in the way. I want a camera that can be programmed so I can press the shutter once and the camera takes the 30 photos that I need, without having to touch a setting. Also great video functionality.

But the K-5 is so good that as long as such a camera doesn't exist, and the newer Pentax cameras are worse in terms of video, I will stay with it.

[TER-OR]

The K3 has some great features, but the images i get with my K5 are great. Yes, improved autofocus is always a plus. Yes, removing the AA filter would help my macro photography (maybe). I can't justify the jump - and it's less of a jump with a K5IIs.

Video - if that's really important to you then you'll have to make a different set of decisions. Personally, I'd get a dedicated videocamera if video were very important.

[kadajawi]

The K3 has some great features, but the images i get with my K5 are great. Yes, improved autofocus is always a plus. Yes, removing the AA filter would help my macro photography (maybe). I can't justify the jump - and it's less of a jump with a K5IIs.

Video - if that's really important to you then you'll have to make a different set of decisions. Personally, I'd get a dedicated videocamera if video were very important.

Good dedicated video cameras that give me the look that I'd like to have cost at least $8000-10000, so... thanks, but no thanks. And then I still don't have a still camera, I'd need to carry two cameras, probably 2 different sets of lenses, ... one camera that does both is much better for me, and other brands have shown that it is possible, mostly Panasonic and Sony, Samsung seems to be there too starting in October, and Olympus is trying to get there (with OM-D E-M1s with beta firmwares in Hollywood).

[Just1MoreDave]

I just got one, so of course.

I was on track to get the K-3 in spring 2015, which would have been upgrading every five years. But then K-5 IIs deals started appearing, I had some money around, and I rethought. I could reuse my KatzEye from the K-7, but I'd have to get a new one for the K-3. The larger K-3 files would make me want a computer upgrade, desktop and laptop. I don't need better AF, burst or whatever. It's the same size as the K-7, which I like. I was somewhat put off by the equivocation about whether the K-3 IQ really improved on the K-5 IIs. Without really looking into that issue, I just decided the IQ upgrade would be huge in either case.

I am interested to see whether the Canon 7D Mark II comes close to the K-5 IIs in image quality. Obviously the Pentax doesn't have 10fps or some other specs.

[dadipentak]

t certainly has. I still really enjoy working with my K5IIs - even though I have a K3, not to mention plenty of other cameras.

I enthusiastically agree!

[MD Optofonik]

A lot of support for the K5 series overall which surprises me a bit considering how old the original is.

[dadipentak]

A lot of support for the K5 series overall which surprises me a bit considering how old the original is.

It was really a quantum leap over the K-7 and a joy to shoot.

[mee]

A lot of support for the K5 series overall which surprises me a bit considering how old the original is.

When does age automatically negate a camera?

If it works, it works.. and the K-5 just works.

[Digitalis]

A lot of support for the K5 series overall which surprises me a bit considering how old the original is.

This coming from someone who has a fridge full of film?

I still use my K10D:


Pentax K10D - SMCP-FA* 200mm f/4 ED [IF] Macro - ISO800 f/4 1/500th

[MD Optofonik]

When does age automatically negate a camera?

If it works, it works.. and the K-5 just works.

I agree, that why I still shot with my K2000 and several film cameras.

---------- Post added 09-30-14 at 07:53 PM ----------

This coming from someone who has a fridge full of film?

Hahaha, guilty as charged.

We all know, however, people generally upgrade digital cameras at a faster pace than they upgraded film cameras in film's heyday. I will eventually want a "flagship" digital Pentax to compliment my "flagship" film Pentax. In two years I may start a similar thread about the K3.

[Tanzer]

I suppose it is a bit interesting that "traditional" digital cameras have plateaued somewhat. All those pundits that say that Pentax is doomed or whatever, based on what some other manufacturers just happen to be doing in the last one or two years, really don't have any better of a clue where the industry will be 5 years from now, let alone 10 or 20 years.

There is a lot of crap about certain recent mirrorless cameras being more innovative, but this overlooks the fact that this has nothing to do with the actual mirrorless aspect of the cameras, and whatever technology gains are there can be applied to any cameras from any manufacturer, if the manufacturer wants to (allowing for patents and licensing agreements). Sometimes people forget that mirrorless cameras are just DSLRs with fewer features. Brand X has better video codecs and 4k, well boo hoo, I'd like to have that too, but that doesn't suddenly make my whole system less capable.

In the meantime, I have my battery grip for the K-5, so I can use AA's, so I can keep on shooting even if the world's supply of D-LI90's goes away. That's not being too paranoid, eh?

[kadajawi]

AAs in DSLRs are a bit of a joke, no? My istDS did something like 100 photos on non rechargeable AAs... I'm glad to have Li-Ion, and I have a charger that works with USB (or can be charged with a power socket or car) and an external USB battery that can charge my camera's battery several times.

Some things can't be done by DSLRs. It can't be as silent (at least being useful at the same time), you don't get a viewfinder that also displays a histogram or other useful info, as well as displaying what exactly you'll be getting. I don't use my camera's screen, and sometimes my photos are horribly over or underexposed cause I made a mistake. Having an instant preview in the viewfinder would be nice.

Of course on the other hand mirrorless has disadvantages too... massive ones right now (resolution not high enough in the viewfinder, lag, ...).

I think traditional DSLRs still have room for improvement in the area of video, not so much stills, because that has plateaued for all larger sensor cameras IMHO (with only small incremental improvements over time). But the big innovators are in the mirrorless field, maybe because that is easier to compete in as a "smaller" company.