[Jason 407]

I know. These threads are done to death. I wouldn't bother, but this might be a sort of unique proposition. I want to upgrade my body to get better high ISO performance and better autofocus. A little more consistent metering and better general performance would be nice, too. I had just about decided to get the K IIs, which looks like the best deal on the planet right now.

But I saw a local clearance on the K-50 with the 18-55 kit for $310. Knowing that A) size is important, since I was recently considering replacing my whole kit with mirrorless; and B) budget is tight and the difference between 310 and 500 is not a tiny one, would it make sense to go with the K-50, or should I try to stretch to the 5IIs?

My uses? I shoot mostly in Av, a lot of available light indoors stuff, but with the K10D's sensor I can't really go much above ISO 400 comfortably. I've started experimenting a little with flash to try to get better results, but I'm not sure that is much of a difference between the 50 and the 5IIs. Has anyone made the jump from a previous flagship body to a lower specified one? Will I miss the top LCD? I do sometimes use the external metering mode and autofocus mode switches. Is it a pain to use the menu system for those settings? Is there anything else I'll not like that I'm not thinking of? I wish the K-S2 was at this point in its life, because I would love the articulating LCD and the built-in WIFI, but that isn't going to happen for a while.

Any opinions would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.

[geomez]

How much more would a K-5 IIs be?

[robthebloke]

The k-5iis produces sharper images, has a better build quality, a quieter shutter, and 14 bits per channel (so you can do a bit more in Lightroom).

If money is tight, I'd say get the k-5iis. Yes it's more expensive, but in 3 years time you'll be thinking "I've got an awesome camera", where as with the K-50 you'll be thinking "i wonder when I'll be able to upgrade"...

---------- Post added 02-23-15 at 04:13 AM ----------

How much more would a K-5 IIs be?

$190 if you read the post

[interested_observer]

If your budget is tight, I would go with the K50. The difference in terms of your use with the K5IIs will not really be used. You will get the greatest use out of the K50's capability. Also, the possible financial bind would not be worth it.

[Jason 407]

The k-5iis produces sharper images, has a better build quality, a quieter shutter, and 14 bits per channel (so you can do a bit more in Lightroom).

If money is tight, I'd say get the k-5iis. Yes it's more expensive, but in 3 years time you'll be thinking "I've got an awesome camera", where as with the K-50 you'll be thinking "i wonder when I'll be able to upgrade"...

---------- Post added 02-23-15 at 04:13 AM ----------



$190 if you read the post

Is the image quality noticeably better, then? Remember I'm stepping up from a camera I've had for about 9 years. Either will be such a huge step up that I won't know what to do with myself.

I forgot to mention that the K-50 that I can get is white. Not sure how I'd get along with that color scheme on an SLR.

[geomez]

$190 if you read the post

Some how, some way my eyes didn't pick up the "500". Maybe numbers aren't money to my brain without some sort of $ symbol.

Jason, I'd go with the K-5 IIs. I've had the K-5 IIs and my wife currently has a K-30 which is essentially the same as the K-50. Having used both extensively, I prefer the K-5 IIs because of the physical buttons and ergonomics, as well as the superior sharpness. Cost aside, the only pluses to the K-50 is the lighter weight and the focus peaking.

[yucatanPentax]

No, the image quality is not hugely different. Heie did a comparison post (the K-30 is nearly identical to the K-50 internally) where the difference could be seen if you greatly enlarged the output, but not readily apparently otherwise.

What Heie says about his own test between the K-30 and K-5iis:

I made a test that proved that, unless the utmost care is placed on photographic technique while in the right hands, you will see a negligible difference between it and the K-5 IIs resolution/sharpness wise.

It depends on your use of your photos. Since you're upgrading from the K10D, I doubt if you are now blowing your photos up to wall-sized posters where you'd see the difference between the 16mp sensor of the K-50 and the 16mp sensor of the K-5IIs.

Also, a bit of unasked for advice: You may want to hang onto the K10D for photography in bright light, outdoors, etc. The rendering of the older CCD sensor has a cult following. It really is different from more modern sensors. More megapixels doesn't always mean the final image is that much better.

More discussion here.

---

Last edited by yucatanPentax; 02-22-2015 at 10:13 PM. Reason: add another link

[UncleVanya]

+1 for keeping the k10d you may need it to disable sdm some day.

I went from k100d super to k50... losing top LCD. I only miss the ability to see lens focal length. The fact is you may regret the decision no matter what you do.

What lenses do you have, what will you have with each option, what would you like to have? Me, I'd buy the k50, and then save up for a lens.

How do I know... I already did it.

[MadMathMind]

I recommend going with the K-5IIs for the simple fact that it can do a bit more. You may not need all its features now, but you can grow into them. Aside from focus peaking, the K50 offers less and you may find that it no longer meets your needs one day, while it's not really possible to grow beyond the K-5IIs, as it does virtually everything a camera can do these days. It's also better arranged for experts, with more dials and buttons and such.

My advice is always to buy more camera than you need. You cannot learn to use what you don't have.

[jgnfld]

Is the image quality noticeably better, then? Remember I'm stepping up from a camera I've had for about 9 years. Either will be such a huge step up that I won't know what to do with myself.

I forgot to mention that the K-50 that I can get is white. Not sure how I'd get along with that color scheme on an SLR.

I really wanted the red one, but between white and black there is no comparison: White it is! And it looks just fine!

[biz-engineer]

The best camera so far , in my opinion is the K5IIs and is now available cheap. The k5iis is at the level of the D810 in terms of sensor performance in the APS-c center of the frame. In addition, the risk of getting a bad copy in the second hand market is very low because the K5ii and K5iis where basically a K-5 without the bugs. And the battery life of the K5iis is better than the K-3. If I was going to buy a new APSc camera, I'd buy a K5iis.

[JimC1101]

Some how, some way my eyes didn't pick up the "500". Maybe numbers aren't money to my brain without some sort of $ symbol.

Jason, I'd go with the K-5 IIs. I've had the K-5 IIs and my wife currently has a K-30 which is essentially the same as the K-50. Having used both extensively, I prefer the K-5 IIs because of the physical buttons and ergonomics, as well as the superior sharpness. Cost aside, the only pluses to the K-50 is the lighter weight and the focus peaking.

I have had a K-30, which is for all intents and purposes a K-50, for almost 3 years now. I love the camera. I look about upgrading to the K-5IIS but then all I think about is "Will I see better pictures if I move up to the next step ?" The only thing that I think about is the lack of a low pass filter which would make a slight sharper difference but the K-30 does a very good job already so why should I upgrade. As people say, there are more buttons, but for those of us who use if for some time, we can make changes in camera via the menu to change what is most important to me, ISO changes to be the biggest. I can change it without having to take my vf to see and change it so for those who have used it long enough, menu changes are second nature.


I may think about the S2 once I see how the reviews go, but I don't know if I will. Articulated screen is not that important to me, wifi is great and why I might change but I don't know. I guess what I am saying the K-50/K-30 are great cameras and take great pics. You might be surprised to get a 5IIS and think, I upgraded but my pictures look the same. Think about a K-3 and then I think you would see a bigger change.

---------- Post added 02-23-15 at 01:21 AM ----------

The best camera so far , in my opinion is the K5IIs and is now available cheap. The k5iis is at the level of the D810 in terms of sensor performance in the APS-c center of the frame. In addition, the risk of getting a bad copy in the second hand market is very low because the K5ii and K5iis where basically a K-5 without the bugs. And the battery life of the K5iis is better than the K-3. If I was going to buy a new APSc camera, I'd buy a K5iis.

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't the sensor for the 5IIS and the K-30/50 the same 16MP sensor ? The difference for the processor was Prime M but I think all 3 are Prime M for these cameras also. The K-5 was not Prime M but from the K-01 on, it has been Prime M for the 16MB sensor.

---------- Post added 02-23-15 at 01:26 AM ----------

I recommend going with the K-5IIs for the simple fact that it can do a bit more. You may not need all its features now, but you can grow into them. Aside from focus peaking, the K50 offers less and you may find that it no longer meets your needs one day, while it's not really possible to grow beyond the K-5IIs, as it does virtually everything a camera can do these days. It's also better arranged for experts, with more dials and buttons and such.

My advice is always to buy more camera than you need. You cannot learn to use what you don't have.

Buttons aside, what is it that allows the K-5IIS to do more ?


14bit vs 12bit but it has been debated as to how much of a change you will see, maybe in the shadows. No low pass filter, agree, but you will need to process moire in PP if it becomes an issue. Don't get me wrong, the 5IIS is a great camera but I am not seeing where it has more abilities in regard to prints other than the 2 things I pointed out.

[officiousbystander]

The question is not if the K5iis is better than the K50 but if Jason would be happy with the K50. Isn't the answer yes? It's a pretty amazing bargain for that price.

[geomez]

I have had a K-30, which is for all intents and purposes a K-50, for almost 3 years now. I love the camera. I look about upgrading to the K-5IIS but then all I think about is "Will I see better pictures if I move up to the next step ?" The only thing that I think about is the lack of a low pass filter which would make a slight sharper difference but the K-30 does a very good job already so why should I upgrade. As people say, there are more buttons, but for those of us who use if for some time, we can make changes in camera via the menu to change what is most important to me, ISO changes to be the biggest. I can change it without having to take my vf to see and change it so for those who have used it long enough, menu changes are second nature.

Jim, you have a K-30. It's a good camera and if you feel no need to upgrade, than by all means don't. Jason on the other hand has neither. IMO the K-5 IIs is better. I still think the K-30 is a good camera. I purchased one for my wife after I had owned my IIs and a K-30. Ergonomics, physical buttons, and top LCD are big deals to me. Sharpness matters to me too. So I say so. No need to get upset.

[robthebloke]

Is the image quality noticeably better, then? Remember I'm stepping up from a camera I've had for about 9 years. Either will be such a huge step up that I won't know what to do with myself.

I forgot to mention that the K-50 that I can get is white. Not sure how I'd get along with that color scheme on an SLR.

Personally I can see a difference in sharpness and colour depth, but others will no doubt tell me that I'm mistaken, and must be blind. That's what usually happens when conversation drifts into 14 vs 12 bit, AA vs no-AA territory!

I used to own a white kx, and well, from now on my cameras will be boring black. Having a white camera does gets you into all sorts of conversations about cameras, *all the time*. If you're trying to discretely take photos of people, the white camera gives the game away somewhat. On the plus side though, people tend to be a little less terrified of white vs black cameras, but that's the only real advantage. I found the novelty quickly wore off myself.