[jimfellows]

Ok, I m convinced to wait for another good buy on a K-5. Next question, is there a difference between the K-5, K-5II and K-5IIs in image quality? Sometimes I mis the old fil days where the body features were more of a connivance factor rather then an image quality image!

Thanks gain for all the input.

Jim

[ChristianRock]

I'm going to be a little different and suggest a smaller, lighter body since the intention is to take it on walks or when your wife wants to snap away.
The K-S1 can sometimes be found used in the 200-300 dollar range and is as small and light as DSLRs get. With a light prime like the DA 35 2.4 I can carry it around all day.. The DA 21mm would also be perfect for that purpose but costs quite a bit more.
For the intended purrposes I think it would be perfect. If it's a bit pricy the K-r or K-x would also work in the same way.

[normhead]

Ok, I m convinced to wait for another good buy on a K-5. Next question, is there a difference between the K-5, K-5II and K-5IIs in image quality? Sometimes I mis the old fil days where the body features were more of a connivance factor rather then an image quality image!

Thanks gain for all the input.

Jim

Personally, I'd just go for the best price i could find. If it happens to be a K-5ii then go for it. Around our house we had two K-5s and never felt the need to upgrade. My wife is still happy (and producing great images) with her K-5 even though she occasionally takes my K-3 or K-1 out. She simply prefers the K-5, she's happy with the images, even when comparing them to mine, and knows how to use the camera.

They don't have tracking AF or a fast burst speed, but honestly, despite all the nonsense you hear on the forum, very few people expect those things from a camera, or would use it if they had it. She's taken lots of action shots of our dogs using a K-5, and the IQ is still top notch.

[Skodadriver]

The S model should have better image quality, depending on the lens, shooter etc, you can compare them in the forum or look at one or more of the many reviews on the internet. I believe the models are identical in body shape, just with slightly better performance in some areas as the newer models were brought in.

[aslyfox]

are you aware of the info you can find under " cameras " above

reviews and a three camera comparison

here is a link to that using the K 5 II, K 70 and and K 500

Pentax K-5 II vs. Pentax K-70 vs. Pentax K-500 - Pentax Camera Comparison - PentaxForums.com

you can chose different camera bodies by using the drop boxes

You can use this tool to do a side by side by comparison

Very little difference between the k5 II and the lI S

[normhead]

The S model should have better image quality, depending on the lens, shooter etc, you can compare them in the forum or look at one or more of the many reviews on the internet. I believe the models are identical in body shape, just with slightly better performance in some areas as the newer models were brought in.

This may or may not be true, we've compared K-5 and K-1 images on a 4k (4000x2300) monitor and found them to be indistinguishable. SO, before I'm going to believe that there would be a circumstance where a K-5II image is better than a K-5 image, I'd want to see some (non-pixel peeping ) examples. I'm sure pixel peeping you can make a case, someone claimed that the K-5II had 10% better resolution than a K-5. IMHO in analogue systems you need 100% increases to make meaningful comparisons. 10% is just way below the threshold for meaningful positive comparisons. They are for all intents and purposes the same except for a few improvements such as tungsten light AF.

---------- Post added 08-05-17 at 10:05 AM ----------

I'm going to be a little different and suggest a smaller, lighter body since the intention is to take it on walks or when your wife wants to snap away.
The K-S1 can sometimes be found used in the 200-300 dollar range and is as small and light as DSLRs get. With a light prime like the DA 35 2.4 I can carry it around all day.. The DA 21mm would also be perfect for that purpose but costs quite a bit more.
For the intended purrposes I think it would be perfect. If it's a bit pricy the K-r or K-x would also work in the same way.

Another good suggestion. +1^

[Skodadriver]

This may or may not be true, we've compared K-5 and K-1 images on a 4k (4000x2300) monitor and found them to be indistinguishable. SO, before I'm going to believe that there would be a circumstance where a K-5II image is better than a K-5 image, I'd want to see some (non-pixel peeping ) examples. I'm sure pixel peeping you can make a case, someone claimed that the K-5II had 10% better resolution than a K-5. IMHO in analogue systems you need 100% increases to make meaningful comparisons. 10% is just way below the threshold for meaningful positive comparisons. They are for all intents and purposes the same except for a few improvements such as tungsten light AF.

By better I mean sharper, on the S model. The reviews I have read regarding the deletion of the anti-aliasing filter on the S model indicate the images were sharper because of this. I did not suggest the K-5ii (not S model) provided a better image.

[normhead]

By better I mean sharper, on the S model. The reviews I have read regarding the deletion of the anti-aliasing filter on the S model indicate the images were sharper because of this. I did not suggest the K-5ii (not S model) provided a better image.

Yet on a 4k monitor we did not find the K-1 images to be sharper than the K-5, because both images were reduced in size, essentially becoming identical images. So there may prove to instances when the K-IIs images are sharper, but only for pixel peepers. In every day use, there will be no difference.

Sure if you blow both images up to ridiculous size the K-5II images will be slightly sharper. Perhaps not sharp enough to pick out the difference from a normal viewing distance but maybe up close with a magnifying glass. But if the images are reduced as is the case 99.5% of the time, there will be no difference in sharpness.

[jeallen01]

FWIW re the K-x, it depends on how much weight you/whoever want to carry because the later K-R is a better option (focus point viewable in the viewfinder!) IMHO. OTOH, the K-30/K-50 /(K-70?) is generally a better option (providing you can avoid the Aperture block failure issue - I have yet to have it with my K-30) because it has the same (noticeably higher resolution) sensor as the K-5 in a lighter body, albeit with no top LCD display, and more modern firmware and options (and possibly capable of the "K-40" firmware on the K-30 - see elsewhere on the forum! - upgrade to the K-50 firmware).
FWIW2, I have a K-5 and both versions of the K-3, but the K-30 is my go-to option for holidays and days out because it is smaller and lighter.
FWIW3 - forget the K-1 - totally different size/weight/COST alternative

[mikesbike]

I'd say as long as you are going to spend some money, why not upgrade in the process? Looking for a second cheap body would be more appropriate if your current body were a more current, and full-featured one- but that is not the case. A K-5 would indeed be an upgrade. In fact, I would suggest spending a bit extra and looking for an excellent, low-use K-5 IIs. I have both, and can say for sure that the IIs does out-perform the original. You will also have a top LCD panel and an advanced pro-oriented control set, much better-built construction with WR, no history of aperture failure, as well as 14 bit RAW capability and the ability to do in-camera RAW processing to be saved as lossless TIFF images. Then, your K-500 will become your cheaper, slightly lighter 2nd body, the one having the AA filter, and usable with AA batteries.

That is the way I usually do my upgrades- get a new, more advanced body when the price is advantageous, then retain my older model as my cheaper 2nd body.

[aslyfox]

. . . That is the way I usually do my upgrades- get a new, more advanced body when the price is advantageous, then retain my older model as my cheaper 2nd body.

I did the same, upgraded by grabbing a K 3 and making my K 5 II the back up [ note I had chosen the K 3 instead of the K 3 II s so I could have the on board flash ] and gave my *st DL to a kid just starting photography

[mikesbike]

The K-5 IIs does have an on-board flash. It omits the AA filter, which improves sharpness of detail. The K-3 has a flash also, but the K-3 II does not.

[aslyfox]

The K-5 IIs does have an on-board flash. It omits the AA filter, which improves sharpness of detail. The K-3 has a flash also, but the K-3 II does not.

you are correct

for some reason, I screwed up what cameras I was discussing.

I chose the K 3 over the K 3 II and got the optional GPS unit usable for the K 5 II and the K 3

[jeallen01]

Don't forget the OP's original post implied that he is looking for something cheap!

[jimfellows]

I took the advice to look forward, not back and ended up getting a low mileage K-3! I am really looking forward to it arriving!

Thanks for your help!

Jim