[Gold Coast]

Thanks to all who gave feedback. Excellent information a lot to think about.....


Thanks again Bill

[Des]

I've got the KP, K-S2 (similar camera to the K-70) and K-3. In terms of IQ the KP has the edge. Its metering and AF are as good as (maybe even better than) those on the K-3, its high ISO performance is much better. PS is a great feature which the K-3 and K-S2 don't have (although the K-70 does). Its construction is more robust than the K-S2, rivalling the K-3. The small battery can be limiting (as it can on the K-S2) but I just make sure to carry a spare.

But I agree with the others who don't like the ergonomics as much. I use the L handgrip and still find it too small. The third wheel is useful (particularly for setting the ISO or changing exposure metering setting), but personally I find the overall layout a bit cluttered and less comfortable to use than the K-3 or K-S2. For example, the position of the button for back-button AF isn't as good. Unless you get the battery grip, the KP doesn't balance as well with heavier lenses as the K-3 (I have the FA*300 f4.5 and Sigma 400 f5.6), but it balances well with my other lenses (DA 15, DA 20-40, FA 43, FA 50 macro, FA 77, DFA 100, DA 12-24, DA 18-135, DA 55-300 PLM).

I also have the DA 18-135 and use it often. It has delivered some good results on the KP. Here's one using PS:


The image stabilization in the KP is outstanding. The K-S2 and K-3 are good, but the KP is at another level. This is taken at 0.8 seconds handheld. (KP + DA 20-40 Ltd)


Not that the K-S2 is any slouch, and the K-70 would be better than it. But the KP is overall a more advanced camera.

Personally I would stump up the extra $200 for the KP over the K-70 (although the gap was much less when I bought my KP in the sales last November). But it depends on how tight your budget is. For your uses, the 55-300 PLM would be almost mandatory. If you get that lens, the DA 16-85 might be a better companion than the 18-135 (handy 2mm extra width, better corner resolution across the range), but the 16-85 is more expensive. A choice between (a) K-70 + 16-85 + 55-300 PLM or (b) KP + 18-135 + 55-300 PLM for around the same price would be really tough. If I had to make that choice I'd probably go with (a).

[ronniemac]

If we consider the quality of photograph you will get from the setup, my suggestion is that you consider the less expensive camera (K-70) and a more expensive lens (16-85mm). If you can live with the reduced reach, you will be rewarded with better defined photographs and have the bonus of noticeably extra width at 16mm. I also have the 18-135 but hardly ever use it now because it is somewhat softer all round, and most noticeably between 50 and 135. I get better results cropping the 16-85mm at the long to cover the same field of view as 135 at it's long end. In-depth reviews here do support this finding.

[UncleVanya]

If we consider the quality of photograph you will get from the setup, my suggestion is that you consider the less expensive camera (K-70) and a more expensive lens (16-85mm). If you can live with the reduced reach, you will be rewarded with better defined photographs and have the bonus of noticeably extra width at 16mm. I also have the 18-135 but hardly ever use it now because it is somewhat softer all round, and most noticeably between 50 and 135. I get better results cropping the 16-85mm at the long to cover the same field of view as 135 at it's long end. In-depth reviews here do support this finding.

The comparison that was published by the staff here disagrees and said that cropping the 16-85 was inferior to shooting the 18-135 at 135. I'm on mobile and I can't find the detailed link.

I'd be genuinely interested to see these detailed comparisons.

[reh321]

If we consider the quality of photograph you will get from the setup, my suggestion is that you consider the less expensive camera (K-70) and a more expensive lens (16-85mm).

This depends wholly on the type of photos being taken. The better lens may give sharper images, but the KP as mentioned above, has better build quality and several other features, so the OP will need to evaluate the entire package.

[Des]

The comparison that was published by the staff here disagrees and said that cropping the 16-85 was inferior to shooting the 18-135 at 135.

This is the one: HD Pentax-DA 16-85mm F3.5-5.6 Review - General Image Quality | PentaxForums.com Reviews
The comparison was based on centre sharpness, which is the strength of the 18-135 at its tele end. And this wasn't just due to the advantage of the extra reach. PF also compared the centre sharpness of the 18-135 at 85mm and the 16-85 at 85mm and the 18-135 produced better results there too.

Of course in a comparison of corner sharpness the 16-85 would have won hands down at the tele end. In fact it would probably have won across the range, and even in a comparison stopped down to f8. See the comparison in Heie's review on this page: HD Pentax-DA 16-85mm F3.5-5.6 ED DC WR Reviews - DA Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

But as people have repeatedly pointed out, edge-to-edge sharpness isn't necessarily the be-all and end-all in a lens. In real world use, the 18-135 is a versatile and capable lens, as the 18-135 thread attests. It's more compact, lighter and cheaper than the 16-85 and the extra reach reduces the need for lens changes (or indeed in some situations the need to carry a telephoto lens at all). And with its centre-sharp, corner-soft formula, with good colours and microcontrast, the 18-135 can produce images with a lot of snap, crackle and pop. Examples:


.








Contrary to what you might read, despite the soft corners it can even produce acceptable landscapes sometimes. ;-)












Despite this, I did say that I would probably choose the K-70 + 16-85 + 55-300 PLM over the KP + 18-135 + 55-300 if they were around the same price (assuming that was the budget limit). My reasons are:
- the 55-300 would cover off the telephoto end better than either the 16-85 or the 18-135 (the PLM is really good for what it is),
- the extra width of the 16-85 would save carrying an ultrawide on many occasions,
- the 16-85 has HD coatings (a big plus IMO and makes it a more seamless pairing with the PLM), which the 18-135 doesn't,
- I would expect to use the 16-85 for the types of landscapes where I want better edge-to-edge sharpness (and it would save carrying another lens for this purpose)
- the K-70 has many of the virtues of the KP and the benefit of better ergonomics (that is, while I prefer the KP to the consumer-class cameras like the K-S2 and K-70, I could live with the K-70 as a companion to the K-3 if budget constraints required).

But that's just me, and based on assumptions about price and budget. A case could be made the other way too depending on the needs of the particular user.

[Gold Coast]

Thanks DES great feedback


Bill

[mikesbike]

A great post again, Des. For me, the reduction of overall lens changing with the DA 18-135mm, and combined with its compactness, makes it a great versatile tool. Another angle for a compact kit is to at some point add a DA 15mm Limited. So small I have it in the front accessory pocket of my belt-loop/cross-shoulder strap holster-style camera case. Full featured, well-built compact DSLR carrying doesn't get better than that with the excellent controls set, pro-build, WR, and yet with the availability of such a versatile range.

[Sandy Hancock]

- Metering: 86K pixel vs 77 segment
- AF system: SAFOX11 (27 point) vs SAFOX 10 (11 point), plus new tracking algorithms
- Processor: Prime IV + accelerator vs Prime M II
- 3 Control wheels vs 2
- Shake Reduction: 5-axis SRII vs SR
- Ultrasonic DRII vs sensor shake DR
- Quiet shutter and motor aperture vs louder shutter and solenoid aperture.
- 7FPS vs 6FPS
- Magnesium body vs plastic.
- Electronic shutter option
- External battery grip option[/I][/I]

^THIS

The only reasons to opt for the K-70 in favour of the KP are cost and the fully articulated LCD screen. I went for the KP and have been very happy with it.