[Tanzer]

I am using Lithium AA's in my *istDS, you should go that route. From the manual, it would appear that alkaline AA's were really intended just for emergency use. I have nothing against Li-ion batteries, just the proprietary form factor. It's good that Pentax has used the D-Li90 in so many cameras including now the K-3 but I couldn't predict the future when I bought the K-5 and battery grip.

A truly versatile DSLR could operate as well with the mirror up as well as down. It's just that they are presently optimized for operation with the mirror down.

I agree with you about the EVF, but that's the only real core advantage, and as you pointed out, it's not always an advantage. It isn't so much of an advanced technology as it is good processing and software. A DSLR could use an EVF (in theory) or use a hybrid optical/electronic viewfinder but I would not think that is likely to happen since the OVF still has so many advantages for stills shooting, and Ricoh in particular is so proud (rightly so) of the Pentax OVF.

When I look over the progress that the other guys have made over the last few years it is astounding for them, but in the end, their product has not overtaken the traditional DSLRs, except in video. And that could change overnight, if you believe what certain people are saying about the Nikon D810 video quality, for example. If Canon wanted to, they could put C300 functionality in a T6i, they have the engineers, patents, and know-how to do so.

[kadajawi]

I am using Lithium AA's in my *istDS, you should go that route. From the manual, it would appear that alkaline AA's were really intended just for emergency use. I have nothing against Li-ion batteries, just the proprietary form factor. It's good that Pentax has used the D-Li90 in so many cameras including now the K-3 but I couldn't predict the future when I bought the K-5 and battery grip.

A truly versatile DSLR could operate as well with the mirror up as well as down. It's just that they are presently optimized for operation with the mirror down.

I agree with you about the EVF, but that's the only real core advantage, and as you pointed out, it's not always an advantage. It isn't so much of an advanced technology as it is good processing and software. A DSLR could use an EVF (in theory) or use a hybrid optical/electronic viewfinder but I would not think that is likely to happen since the OVF still has so many advantages for stills shooting, and Ricoh in particular is so proud (rightly so) of the Pentax OVF.

When I look over the progress that the other guys have made over the last few years it is astounding for them, but in the end, their product has not overtaken the traditional DSLRs, except in video. And that could change overnight, if you believe what certain people are saying about the Nikon D810 video quality, for example. If Canon wanted to, they could put C300 functionality in a T6i, they have the engineers, patents, and know-how to do so.

The *istDS did well with eneloop rechargeables, but they are expensive (more so than the non-original D-Li90) and require a more expensive charger so that they don't get damaged. Plus they are heavier and bigger despite having lower capacity. Lithium AA's cost a fortune IIRC... one set for the *istDS costs as much as one D-Li90...!


I'd say a mirrorless camera can be more robust, faster, have less shutter lag, less noisy, smaller, have a better preview of what you'll actually get in the photo (plus review in the viewfinder), allows for smaller and lighter lenses (and thanks to the new APS-C sensor in the NX-1 it doesn't matter if the light hits the sensor at an angle), larger viewfinder, allow you to see a picture even when it is too dark (as long as the sensor is sensitive enough, say for example the A7S), ... A hybrid might be possible, but what's the point? The only advantage is that you have a screen in the viewfinder. The 5 ms lag the NX-1 has should pretty much negate that advantage of OVF, the lag should be so small that you might not notice it. What's left is resolution I guess, but maybe it is already THAT sharp. While I haven't seen an EVF that has 100% convinced me, I don't think it is far off. If they'd be able to put my smartphone screen into the viewfinder, I'd be happy.


The D810 and the D750 are supposed to be really good, as far as DSLRs go, but they lack in resolution. The A7S and GH4 are tough competitors (it seems like Sony's colors are a bit... wrong, but that can be fixed in post), and the NX-1 looks like it will also be a very strong contender. Would it be possible to bring DSLRs to the level of those cameras? In parts, yes (video AF not so much, unless you use a sensor with PDAF sensors on the sensor, however you'd have to have the traditional placement of PDAF sensors too). But DSLRs are mostly covered by the really conservative brands, who don't want to or can't innovate.


Of course Canon could make a great video DSLR, but please, why would they?! Instead of $600 for a video DSLR they can charge $12000 for more or less the same hardware (yes, there's more to a C300 etc., but I highly doubt that those differences make up for $11400, of course they'd much rather sell the really profitable camera). It's funny that Pentax doesn't look at that and say "mh, we'd like to have a slice of that".

[Tanzer]

I don't think we are too far apart in our opinions. I guess my primary concern is how one defines innovation. Things like on-sensor PDAF and Panasonic' DFD autofocus concept are definitely innovations. But those concepts aren't limited to mirrorless cameras.

Having a camera that is faster (in burst shooting), smaller, and less noisy don't qualify as innovations as far as I am concerned, although I don't discount the fact that these are important to many buyers.

A full sensor readout and moire-free video also isn't really a camera innovation as much as it is sensor and processing improvements that are a natural progression. (I predict that, whether we want it or not, Pentax cameras will eventually shoot 4k like everyone else, just because at some point in time they will be able to do it for free because the sensor will come that way.)

I'm enjoying watching Panasonic and Sony battle it out, because competition is always good, and they are bringing things to the market at lower prices, even if the things they are doing aren't always really that innovative. Unfortunately for video use, their designs fundamentally suffer from focus-by-wire, and both rely on optical stabilization. The best thing to come out of this, IMHO, is that Olympus will join the fray and improve their video capabilities, giving us Pentaxians a useful and practical body option for stabilized video -- even if it crops our lenses further.

In the meantime, returning to the OP's topic, my K-5 is just as capable as the day I bought it.

[MD Optofonik]

you don't get a viewfinder that also displays a histogram or other useful info

I've always thought the most useful information in the viewfinder was an unobstructed view of the subject. Just sayin'.

[altopiet]

AAs in DSLRs are a bit of a joke, no?

I don't know about the istDS, but on my K-5 I get about 1200 images with my Eneloop AA's, and as I use AA's in my K-x, K-30 and other devices, I'm glad Pentax gives us a choice to use them...

[dtmateojr]

This is how I feel every time there's a new release coming.

[BrianR]

No matter what comes out, the k5iis will still be as good in 5 years as it was when it came out. Which is to say pretty darn solid as an image capturing device.

AAs in DSLRs are a bit of a joke, no? My istDS did something like 100 photos on non rechargeable AAs...

As mentioned, eneloops + a smart charger make a world of difference. If my only use for the AA's had been my k100d it would have been annoying, but eneloops + smart charger made so many other things just less painful (flashes, cordless mice/phones, remotes, etc.). I don't know how the *ist users coped before eneloops, and even when they were first introduced (late 2005 iirc) they were pretty pricey (late 2006 they were still over $20 for 4xAA in Canada). I guess if you hadn't yet embraced the thousands of clicks per month/week/(day?) mentality of digital, lithium AA wouldn't seem too expensive, they're still cheaper than film per click.

[kadajawi]

No matter what comes out, the k5iis will still be as good in 5 years as it was when it came out. Which is to say pretty darn solid as an image capturing device.



As mentioned, eneloops + a smart charger make a world of difference. If my only use for the AA's had been my k100d it would have been annoying, but eneloops + smart charger made so many other things just less painful (flashes, cordless mice/phones, remotes, etc.). I don't know how the *ist users coped before eneloops, and even when they were first introduced (late 2005 iirc) they were pretty pricey (late 2006 they were still over $20 for 4xAA in Canada). I guess if you hadn't yet embraced the thousands of clicks per month/week/(day?) mentality of digital, lithium AA wouldn't seem too expensive, they're still cheaper than film per click.

I never owned an Lithium AA battery. Always had rechargeables, however of the non eneloop kind for quite a while, before I switched. However you'd be down $30-40 minimum to get one set of batteries and a charger. The K-5? All included. And even if I wanted more batteries... $10 or so each? A cheap charger, below $10, and it'll work. I'm using a Patona, which costs slightly more, but can be charged via power socket, car socket or USB port. Works very well, and you can get adapters for it to charge other batteries with it. At the moment I don't even have AA batteries anymore. A remote control uses them, but regular ones will do their job just fine there.


Oh btw., you don't have to use eneloop batteries to get eneloop performance. Just look out for LSD (that's the name of the tech... low self discharge or so), there are some that are really affordable, and perform almost as good as the real deal.

[MD Optofonik]

I think having the option to use AA batteries insures that one can use an older digital camera for years to come. Proprietary batteries will only be available for so long.

[Tanzer]

Yeah, that was my only point. I have a lot of older non-photography gear that is pretty much useless because I can't get batteries for them. Maybe this is a problem that only older folks are fearful of, because we have accumulated a lot of junk over the years, and also because some of the older battery technology didn't have as good a lifetime as some of the newer batteries.

That's why I was a bit "shy" about my first Pentax DSLR purchase, and got the battery grip for the K-5. The D-LI90 is more popular than I expected it would be, as it turned out. Guess I will hold onto the battery grip as long as I have my K-5. That could be a loooong time ....

[Nicolas06]

My feeling is that now all camera give really nice picture quality. K5-IIS included of course. I would say, if you already have K5 familly member (K5, K30, K50...) the real visible gain from K5-IIs is the improved AF in low light.

As if there a point to invest more or not in a K3, the biggest argument for pure photographic means is that it has small enough AF sensor as to be much more pleasant to use for thin deph of field needs like portraiture. Compared to K5 the AF is also faster, better in low light and more precise.

As for maybe less important feature but still interresting, K3 give you the same sharpness and cropping capabilities that a 24MP FF give to you. While my K5 was good for cropping capabilities, the K3 is far more conveniant. When I go 1:3 shoots from my photo with K5 it was somewhat visible I had not enough pixels anymore. With the K3, it is good enough. I suppose for this that K5-IIs is in between K5 and K3.

As for if this will serve well for the years to come, I think that we still miss a few things that would really make ou life better and would justify the change (compared to K3):
- Cleaner high isos shoots. K5 is good, K3 almost as good. Still many time you go up to 3200, 6400 shoots and for some shoots is good. For some other is bad. And you greatly reduce your speed to manage that. Even 1600iso is not that good in many cases. A camera that we need 4 more EV to be really comfortable here but any gain of 1EV or more is really good to take. You can get more speed, more color deph... Less time thinking of it when shooting. FF doesn't count that much because it work only with shallower deph of field.
- Articulated LCD to shoot in more strange positions. And from a K5-IIs perspective when using live view, focus peaking. Focus peaking is night and day difference when using live view even more with manal lenses. As for K5-IIs again, speed when using live view.
- EVF. I prefer OVF for now, but I think the features of EVF are really really good. You can add a third wheel that control exposure and directly see histogram and actual exposure in the EVF instead of having to look at the LCD screen on the back that disturb your shooting. You can see all the time the real deph of field, subject in focus can be highlighted, you can use a big sensor and use only the center crop and clearly see in the view finder the outside world and where the photo end.
- If you choose only K5-IIs you miss small auto focus point that make portraiture shoot much more pleasant and intuitive.
- If you choose only K5, you miss efficiant AF in low light.
- Sensor with more dynamic range so you don't need HDR anymore. That would mean at least 4EV more, but could be as much as 10EV more.
- Better software in camera. Making panorama with our Pentax is a nightmare while is trivial with a Smartphone or a Fuji. There no reason to not embbed a good panorama software directly in the camera.

So your K5-IIs will do as good pictures in 5 years, maybe 10 years. But I know for myself that if a new camera give me real improvements on the points I did include there, I would be very interrested in it and think to upgrade for it!

Think for youself... Does the focu peaking in live view, smaller AF points and increasing cropping capabilities speak to you or not? And if you are ready to pay for it! Thoses are the argument that would say you'd be better with K3 than K5-IIs.

[MadMathMind]

AAs in DSLRs are a bit of a joke, no? My istDS did something like 100 photos on non rechargeable AAs.

I don't know about the istDS, but on my K-5 I get about 1200 images with my Eneloop AA's, and as I use AA's in my K-x, K-30 and other devices, I'm glad Pentax gives us a choice to use them...

The switch to CMOS sensors has a lot to do with that. CCD sensors use a lot more power. It's amusing that they switched to LiOn batteries after they became less necessary. It would have seemed a selling point that the new model could use off-the-shelf batteries instead of a proprietary one.

One thing I liked about AA batteries is that while they didn't last long, you could always get more if you weren't out in the middle of nowhere. When I was adventuring around Japan with my K100D, a quick stop at any of the ubiquitous Family Mart stores would take care of any camera power issues I may have.

[Ikarus]

Does the focus peaking in live view, smaller AF points and increasing cropping capabilities speak to you or not? And if you are ready to pay for it! Thoses are the argument that would say you'd be better with K3 than K5-IIs.

Everything else considered, I'd prefer the K-5IIs, but my K-01's focus peaking has spoiled me to the point that even those amazing sub-$600 deals can't sway me to buy one. It'll have to be a K-3.

[royden]

Totally agree! That is also the case for me.

Now $546.95 with grip and 64MB Sandisk card at B&H. I bought one 11/15 for $596.95 with same addons on 11/15/14. I'm hoping B&H credits me the $50 diference. Will it go lower on black Friday? I'll be watching.