[mcgregni]

I believe the most tangible difference between the K5 and "ii / iis" versions was the autofocus improvement, in particular low-light focussing. There were also reports of poor P-TTL flash performance from K5 users, and I believe this concern went away with the "ii" versions.

Whether you gain any practical sharpness advantage from the lack of AA filter depends on your processing workflow, or lack of processing workflow. Some people will be able to produce better looking images from a K5 than other people from a K5ii / iis .... It depends on you.

I think you will get the most upgrade bang per buck by jumping from the K20 to a K5ii/iis.

---

Last edited by mcgregni; 11-23-2018 at 06:01 AM.

[cpk]

I believe the most tangible difference between the K5 and "ii / iis" versions was the autofocus improvement, in particular low-light focussing.

I agree completely. I performed a series of low-light focusing tests between the K-5 and K-5 II, and the latter was definitely better. If your budget is a limiting factor, choose the K-5 II/IIs over the K-5.

[ElwoodP]

I agree completely. I performed a series of low-light focusing tests between the K-5 and K-5 II, and the latter was definitely better. If your budget is a limiting factor, choose the K-5 II/IIs over the K-5.

I thought the iis was the real improvement

[UncleVanya]

I thought the iis was the real improvement

The only difference I'm aware of is the Anti-alias (AA) filter. This provides a small sharpness improvement with a chance for moire due to the lack of the AA filter (rarely an issue). All the other improvements are common to both cameras.

I've sent a private message to you.

[mcgregni]

Real improvement in what..? Both the ii and iis used the same AF system, and the same P-TTL Protocol.

As I wrote in my previous post, to gain "real" (ie real-world practical) sharpness benefits from the iis version depends on the processing treatment post capture. All versions of the 5 series have the same sensor.

[UncleVanya]

Incidentally, I don't think increased sharpness is a big plus with portraits.

[mcgregni]

Yes, you certainly could do nice senior portraits even with an AA filter! Sometimes I'm amazed I can get sharp eyes even when so severely hampered by my K7 with all that terrible smudging and blurriness going on!

I think originally there was a significant price premium for the "s" models .... On the 2nd hand market now that has probably diminished, so I would go for the nicest example you can find, of either model option. If you can afford it, get a battery grip as well, really good for portrait oriented shooting

[Alex645]

Most of my lenses are manual focus lenses from the 1980's. I am on the market for a modern general purpose/ portrait lens. The reason for my return to the hobby is taking senior portraits of my daughter. Maybe that just means an af lens. Maybe it means a more advanced body also...

My budget is limited.

With a limited budget and the goal of shooting senior portraits, your best value will be getting a modern digital lens. It's not the AF that matters, but rather you're not getting the full potential of your DSLR with lenses designed for film.

The bargain new lens for your situation is the Pentax DA 50mm f/1.8 prime:
Pentax smc DA 50mm f/1.8 Lens 22177 B&H Photo Video

Or for a bit more compression and nicer background bokeh, I'd suggest the Rokinon 85mm f/1.4 prime:
Rokinon 85mm f/1.4 AS IF UMC Lens for Pentax K 85M-P B&H Photo

And if you prefer manual focus on a new digital lens, then the Samyang 85mm f/1.4 prime:
Samyang 85mm f/1.4 Aspherical Lens for Pentax SY85M-P B&H Photo

.....and if your budget can handle it:

Pentax HD DA 70mm f/2.4 Limited:
Pentax HD Pentax DA 70mm f/2.4 Limited Lens (Silver) 21440 B&H

Pentax DA* 55mm f/1.4 prime:
Pentax Telephoto 55mm f/1.4 DA* SDM Autofocus Lens 21790 B&H

Pentax FA 77mm f/1.8 Limited:
Pentax smc PENTAX-FA 77mm f/1.8 Limited Lens (Silver) 27970 B&H

I listed the above in ascending price and quality. So I'd recommend any of the first three as a quick fix, and any of the last three as lenses that will last a lifetime. Use your current DSLR until it dies.

[mudpoint101]

I started with the a K-20 and at its technology was as good for its time. Along the way I aquired some manual focus lens from the 70s and 80s. After I bought a K-5lls a M100 macro lens stays on the K-20 and with a flash it works well between 100- 800 ISO. The K-5 I use for everything else, its auto focus and low light with newer lens is so much better. These cameras and lens are all good when used within their best capabilities. I am starting to wonder what's on the horizon though.

[UncleVanya]

Or for a bit more compression and nicer background bokeh, I'd suggest the Rokinon 85mm f/1.4 prime:
Rokinon 85mm f/1.4 AS IF UMC Lens for Pentax K 85M-P B&H Photo

And if you prefer manual focus on a new digital lens, then the Samyang 85mm f/1.4 prime:
Samyang 85mm f/1.4 Aspherical Lens for Pentax SY85M-P B&H Photo

These should be the same lens. Just different branding. Both manual focus, same optics.

[mikesbike]

For an APS-C camera, 85mm is getting a little long for portrait use in terms of perspective, but fine on a 35mm film body or on a FF DSLR. Since the OP has a collection of manual focus lenses for his K20D, I would assume this includes a fast 50mm of f1.4 or f/1.7, either of which would be very good for portrait use, and a good focal length for that on an APS-C camera. Of course this also depends on manual focusing skills.

I bought my K20D new around 10 years ago at a bargain closeout price after the K-7 appeared. Due to test results, I concluded the K-7 produced no improvement over the K20D, in fact was slightly worse at higher ISO settings. I shot with the smaller K200D and the K20D for numerous years until I got good new-price deals on the K-5 and sometime later the K-5 IIs, after the appearance of the K-3, which I passed on getting. I still have my K20D in mint shape and conservative shutter count, but rarely do I now use it.

My observations have been the same as those by newmikey. I found the K-5 to definitey have overall better imaging than the K20D, but in more subtle ways instead of dramatically so. The low-light/higher ISO performance, however, was definitely a big step forward. When I acquired the K-5IIs, I found its AF to be an improvement over that of the K-5, and the images produced often exhibited finer detail due to the lack of an AA filter. The viewfinder is superior to that of the K20D with 100% coverage of the framing. It is smaller, but built like a tank, with its metal (magnesium alloy) construction. It has an excellent controls layout, with direct access to ISO settings, AF modes and adjustments, etc. However, due to reduced overall size, the on-body controls for bracketing and SR on/off are gone.

Since budget is limited and buying used, I highly recommend the K-5 IIs. Despite now having and mostly using the KP, I still like mine. Furthermore, as an all-around lens, and very useful for doing graduation shots, which I have done numerous times, I recommend getting the exceptionally nice DA 18-135mm DC WR lens. With it, you can zoom to get group shots, or zoom to isolate an individual, all from the same shooting position. The K-5 series and the K20D have weather-resistant (WR) construction, but are really not WR unless a WR lens is attached. Incidentally, I have found this lens also can be useful for portraits and other closeups. At 70mm, it is still capable of f/4.5, and at that focal length you can get a very good background blur at f/4.5, as well as this lens's central area rendering being very fine while the bokeh (background blur smoothness) is also very good! As to focus, its AF is especially fast, quiet, and accurate.

[kypfer]

The K-5 is a fine sturdy camera, but I'm not so sure it'd be such a significant upgrade from a 14.6Mpixel camera to be worth the expense, especially for something like portrait work, where the viewfinder would normally be relatively well filled so little cropping should be necessary.


Having recently moved up to a K-70 from a K-5, primarily for wildlife photography, that is a beneficial step, as the images can be so much more heavily cropped whilst still retaining a useful level of detail.


However, for the OP's original purpose, I feel a good modern lens of appropriate focal length to suit his favoured working distances would be a better initial investment.


Just my opinion - YMMV

[newmikey]

The K-5 is a fine sturdy camera, but I'm not so sure it'd be such a significant upgrade from a 14.6Mpixel camera to be worth the expense, especially for something like portrait work, where the viewfinder would normally be relatively well filled so little cropping should be necessary.

I tend to agree. It's a long, long time ago that someone told me to not bother with comparing MP counts unless there's at least a 50% increase. One of the reasons is of course that the megapixels are actually the square area of the sensor pixel counts in both dimensions. What looks like an awesome jump in megapixels, quickly fizzles if you realize you're only getting a few more pixels on either side. (4672 x 3104 for the 14mp K20D against 4928 x 3264 for the 16mp K-5/K-5 II(s)

So the benefit of an upgrade has to come from something else and that something else needs to be dramatic enough to justify the cost of the upgrade. If all else fails, a lens upgrade will probably deliver far more of an IQ boost than a body upgrade (unless of course you already have top-rated lenses, that is).

As the upgrade from a K20D to any of the 16mp models doesn't make sense from a pure pixel count perspective, one needs to look at high-ISO performance, AF speed and accuracy and overall usability. That's why an upgrade to a K-5 II(s) makes a lot of sense when high-ISO and indoor shooting is a large part of what you do. If it's landscape or cityscape, a wide-angle large-aperture lens makes more sense as an upgrade and if it is extra cropping room you need, a jump to any of the 24mp bodies should be a decent consideration.

Now, you might ask: was I this smart when I upgraded in the past? Nope! I made the mistake of doing exactly what was suggested here and going from the K100D-Super to the K20D (great upgrade) and then on the the K-5 (disappointing upgrade). It took me over a year to stop regretting the sale of my K20D which was one of the best Pentax bodies I ever owned. (still miss that awesome form factor)

I actually still don't see a lot of difference between my K20D files and the K-5's and it was only when I upgraded to a K-5 IIs that the usability improvement made me feel that I was actually pushing the envelope. The upgrade from the K-5 IIs was a careful consideration between going for the KP and the K-70 which the latter one won because of more bang/buck and the fully articulated LCD. Both of course had the 50% jump in pixels from 16 to 24 over the K-5-series.

[ElwoodP]

I am learning a lot from the responses. Coming from a Mamiya C33 to the K20d was a huge transition. I feel like I should look at making the jump to the k3. Idk. This is not a hobby for the faint of budget. But that is why I chose Pentax. At least I have options that aren't expensive to keep me shooting.

[normhead]

I went from a K20D to a K-5. Then my wife took the K-5. It was a long wait until I got myself another K-5. We never upgraded to the K-5ii, for me, it didn't seem like a significant upgrade.

What you really want is the K-P with the flip up back screen for low angle macro, or alternatively at least a K-70..The floppy back screen is a wonderful thing. But, any K-5 is a big step up from a K20D.

Between the K-5 and K-5ii I'd just go for the best deal.